N8WUNZ 20230215 (W) PT 2 Our Un-a-lien-able Rights in New Zealand

The speaker discusses Operation Bluebeam and then transitions to a discussion about legal rights and the use of the Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand. They mention specific cases where the Act has been used, including one involving taxation and another involving voting rights for prisoners. The speaker also provides historical context about the Glorious Revolution and the limitations of the monarchy. I'll do Facebook and then that's all done. Hi Nikolai, looks like Operation Bluebeam might be underway, tell us about that Nikolai Bluebeam, we'll be waiting. Welcome along everybody to the UFO Crip, okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, right, let's get down to earth though because this is really where our, where everything lies, the lie of the land, the land law, the law of the land, okay. And this is what we have the rights to, that's been handed down to us through the generations right from 1275, right, now we'll just do a quick recap on what happened last time. Last time we're basically taking a case and looking at the legal suggestions, let's say, that we would give if we were asked, what do you think, what do you think my chances are here and what's the best way to defend myself here? The other thing, so it was partly to do with, we looked at it from the, using the Bill of Rights Act 1688 and the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, we also did a quick skip over and told people where to find this treasury of ancient law, which is in the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, so you can find the, you can go back and watch part one, we didn't realise it was going to be part one, but Emma said, oh, this is what people are interested in, let's, what about this? So I said, okay, we'll do another one, because it's coming up every minute now, I'm using it every day. So I just thought I'd give you a couple of other cases where it's been used in recent history. Now I think it was back in maybe 2018. It's quite surprising how these cases are really quite so recent and you think, how did I miss that? Because it's only, you know, it's not like it was back in 1941 or something like that, right? But we can still use cases that, you know, elucidate the principles back, you know, that were from 1941 or some of them date back to the 1700s, right? Some of these cases that are to do with the right, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. Those sorts of cases established the principles that we are now working with, and there'll be parts of, you know, they'll be put into the Crimes Act or something like that, they'll be put into the Criminal Procedure Act, etc, etc. But they are just reiterations of those basic, like the search and seizure one, I think that's definitely in 1688, but you see it even before that in some of the early ones. It might be in Magna Carta as well. Magna Carta has got an amazing amount of stuff and it's just a treasure trove, you know. If you've got time, go back to Schedule 1 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 and just go through each one and it will, what I tend to do is I see something in that, you know, it'll just have maybe a phrase, it'll talk about, I'll pick a word out of it, but I think what's the application of that, you know, where's that been used? Because what you find with case law and statute is that you're looking for the meaning of the word and the meaning of the word will tell you, will be in a story, a case where it's been used and a judge has interpreted it. Okay, so then you can get the whole feeling of what sort of situations you might be able to use this in yourself. So the two cases that I've, and I haven't got the names of them, I'll look them up. I know the second one, but no, there's three actually, and two have got the word Fitzgerald in it. Okay, two of them, one is Fitzgerald and Muldoon and, well, that was a case that was taken by Fitzgerald, a man called Fitzgerald against a, against the former Prime Minister of New Zealand. No, it wasn't a few years, it wasn't last year, it wasn't before Jacinda, Boys and Girls, it was back in the 70s, I suppose. Muldoon, his name was Muldoon. Anyway, Muldoon was wanting to do some more taxation and there had been law in place with something to do with subsidies for farmers and he wanted either, he wanted to take them away, I think it was, take them away. Maybe it was farmers or maybe it was somebody else. Anyway, it was somebody that this group of people or this person was in this group and he was the complainant and he said, under the 1688 Bill of Rights Act, this was the first article which is that you cannot, the Crown cannot pretend to make laws that haven't been passed by Parliament. So Parliament itself has had to actually run it as a bill, the three stages, through Parliament and make it law and then it could be applied. What he was trying to do was say, it applies. It's not, you know, I can do it, I'm the Prime Minister. So it also abstains what's called the Retrospectus Rule and he fired that one. If you can, under, I think it's section 27 of the Legislation Act 2019. Now you'll see quite a lot of these when you look at these Acts, you'll see in the modern ones anyway, that bits and pieces have been repealed. You have to go back and look at past versions to see what was there before. But along the top of the legislation, it's got some tags and if you look at versions, that's a quite an interesting thing to do. So that's one where Fitzfield, in this case, used it to attack the state, right, because all of these things, you've got to remember all of these human rights or not so much the Human Rights Act, but it is included in the Bill of Rights, in the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights. But the 1990 Bill of Rights, the 1688 Bill of Rights, and all of those previous statutes, beginning right down back in 1275 with, you know, no man is above the law, except the King at that stage, were all for the individual, okay, that you've got to remember. It's no use saying, oh, okay, it will be stronger, we'll be stronger if we do a class action. No, no, no. You have a class action, all it's there for is to get a whole lot of money together to pay your lawyer, okay. You can then get the payout that you might get divided up between the people who have got the money together to pay the lawyer, okay, because the finding will apply to everybody who's got the money in. But it's not the force of numbers because that's just a technical thing to get enough money to run the case, right. The judicial review, which these things are often taken under, and don't be afraid, not everybody's going to have to take judicial reviews because we can use these in all sorts of ways. Anybody can take them, okay, one person. And they're often declarations of rights, okay, and so there's not necessarily a payout because of it, okay. You sometimes can get damages. Now, I think that the case that's going to be taken by Gabrielle and other people, that will be for all the people who were roughed up by the cops down at Freedom Village. You would be able to use not just the 1990 Bill of Rights, but of course the 1688, which I think is probably the prime Act to use rather than the 1990. 1990 explains it in modern day terms. It's probably easier to look at, but what they've done and what we have to break down with what's been happening with judicial reviews is they have, and what they did in the vaccine cases was that they balanced those rights under Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. Now, that was incorrect. Those cases should all be reviewed and shut down because, as I think I talked about last time, the rights are individual rights. They are not group rights. No one has group rights under these rights, human rights, or even the Human Rights Act doesn't have group rights. If you're a member of a group, you can individually sue, right? But it's not like, oh, for example, in these freedom of speech cases, right, people who've talked about certain groups, right? You can rely on your right of freedom of speech. They can't put a group up and say, but you've offended this group. You have to have somebody individual from the group come along and say, well, it was me, and I'm covered by the Human Rights Act, which is incorporated into the Bill of Rights Act 1990, and I'm the one that's been offended. Well, offended's no good because, you know, that's what I've said before. Being offended is not enough, guys. Forget it, okay? And all these people who are thinking they're going to shut freedom of speech down by saying, you abused my group. Well, too bad. Okay? Too bad. It doesn't run. And certain people are finding that out. Right. So the individual sues, or it's sued in an individual's name. A group action just means that a whole lot of other people have had the same thing happen to them, and they'll get a cut of any damages that comes along. Now, in terms of taking judicial reviews, this isn't great. For example, if there had been damages awarded to those people who had their religious objection to the VACs, if damages had been awarded to them, which it wasn't, right, it would have been a difficult, you would have had to, what would you say, you would have had to kind of bring everybody's case up to the notice of the decision maker and say, this one was harmed in this way, this one lost so much wages, this one, you know, had a nervous breakdown, this one, etc, etc. To a certain extent, this is possibly what's going to have to happen a little bit with the people who got beaten up by the cops, right? There's going to be different degrees of damages in each of those ones. All right, so that's going to be interesting taken that way. But now we'll get on, oh sorry, I'll tell you about these other couple of cases. So the next one is, I think it was about 2017, voting rights for prisoners. Ah, what was the name of it? I'll get it and I'll put it up in the notes at some stage. Now, it used to be the case that if you were in prison, you lost your right to vote whilst you were in prison, right? Then there was a case that overturned it. And I'm just trying to think what the 1688 point was. I think it was the right of everybody. It was kind of the right of every man, the right of every person to have, you know, to have an equal right. That you couldn't take away, even in a prison situation, you couldn't take away the right to vote. I think that was it. It looks like Jeff is finding the case for us. I can see that. No, he's not. He's shaking his head. So that was one where it was used as a defence, not an attack. You see there, the Fitzgerald and Moulton, it was an attack. That was a defence. The Fitzgerald and I think it was the Justice Department was the other side of the coin in this one. And this was another police, another, what would you call it, person in jail or person who'd been put into jail under a three-strike rule. And the sentencing, and I think I told you about this man before. I think it was called Fitz, it must have been called Fitzgerald because I know it was Fitzgerald and somebody. And it was just decided in 2022. So just last year. Oh, thanks, Ness. So that's a pretty recent one. But that was the three-strike rule was cruel and unusual punishment. And I think, not sure if that comes under the 1688 or it's one of the earlier ones, but it's very possibly the 1688. And that's because of the historical. Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Of course, it's called 1688 Bill of Rights. Just put that in and you'll come up with New Zealand legislation. OK, it's in the New Zealand legislation. Yeah, I wouldn't bang on about it if it wasn't. Do you want me to do you want me to bring it up, Liz? Yeah, that would be really good. And we can go down. We can go down. Yeah. So I think it was that he had been sentenced. He was a man who had diminished mental capacity for some reason. And he had apparently touched a couple of women, but not, you know, he'd kissed some people in the latest thing that he got into trouble for. And anyway, he was going to be put away for seven years with no hope of parole. And he was rapidly going down the drain. Where's my picture gone? He was rapidly going down the drain and his case was argued. So it was a kind of like a defensive, more of a use, a defensive use. OK, let's have a look at some of these. So the title. Could you click on the title for us? The preamble. The title. Yeah. So the title is an act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject. I see. OK. And settling. It should be. Yeah. OK. Settling the secession of the crown. Now, this act came about about 40 years after the end of the English Civil War. The Civil War was between the New Standing Army, led by General Cromwell, and they were also called the Parliamentarians. Right. And the other side was Charles I and the Royalists. So they were called Roundheads and something. I can't remember what the other one is. But anyway. But what sat behind it was religious strife and political rights, depending on what religion you were. OK. So until Henry VIII, England was ruled from the Vatican, ruled from Rome. OK. It was Catholic country. When he wants to get divorced, he, this is Henry VIII, the Pope, he applied to the Pope to annul his marriage to, what is it, Catherine of Aragon. Right. And because, well, he said, you know, he needed him. I think they had a son. Maybe he died early or something. Anyway. And Mary, he had a daughter, though. And so she was half-sister in the end to Elizabeth I, that we all know about, who was Anne Boleyn's daughter. So anyway, because the King wouldn't, the Pope wouldn't grant the divorce, he broke apart and that's how the Church of England got formed. And he said, and the King then was always the Church of England. So that made sure that the King could put, you know, have any laws that he wanted and had no oversight from the Pope. Right. But Charles I and the Stuarts were Catholics. And they, so they were all, basically, they were always trying to get England back under the Pope. And that included, on the part of Charles I, spending the, you know, spending the treasury on supporting England's enemies in Europe. Anyway, so then they had the Civil War in England and the King got his head cut off for treason. And then they had about 10 years, I think, of the, what was called the interregnum, which was the first five years were the grandees, rule of the grandees, which were basically the army commanders, the generals. They ran the show for the first 10 years, got rid of the House of Lords, got rid of a whole lot of stuff, you know, that the Catholic Church had been, you know, taking a whole lot of money off people, you know, for, so they get, you know, if you paid a lot of money, you could get your sins forgiven and all stuff like this, all sorts of good stuff like that. Anyway, that all went. After Cromwell died of natural causes, his son was the, what was called the Lord Protector, because he wouldn't be king, he wouldn't be crowned king, because, in actual fact, anybody proclaimed king would have been, under the 1649 Act, would have been committing treason. Of course, the only people who kind of understood that were the lawyers, and they, it didn't suit them, they were on the side who was winning, as usual. And when the people got sick of the Puritans, which was the Cromwellians, etc., they decided, oh, we'll let Charles's son, Charles II, come onto the throne. Interesting that the one they're trying to get on at the moment, and I say trying, because I don't think Charles III will make it, is Charles III. So, you know, they want to return everything back to the way it was, obviously. So what happened then? Oh, yeah, so they invited the Stuarts back, which they weren't supposed to, and everything turned custard after a while. They got sick of the spending, and they, you know, they started to persecute Protestants again, etc., etc. So, anyway, he had to flee out of the country in the end, and they invited back, and this is what, I'm just going on about the history, because I want you to understand the importance of what was called the Glorious Revolution. This was William and Mary being invited back to England to be on the throne, but they came back as constitutional monarchs only. So, basically, the thing is that they didn't have, well, most importantly for all the people who were doing Elodio, they didn't come back and be the landlords of England again, because the way that the Fee Simple worked out was, it came from the conquest of William I, and that's how they set up the Fee Simple, right? And so the king, or the queen, depending, was basically the landlord, and that's how they could take taxes. Under William I, they actually did a survey 20 years after, and that's what the Doomsday Book is. They did a survey, what have you got, you know, this is what they're trying to do now, what have you got, how much have you got, how many tables, how many beds, how much stock, etc., etc., and then they would be taxed on it, right? So, basically, once there was no more king, or no more royal family, and it wasn't allowed to be by law another king proclaimed, then there could never be another person who could set up a Fee Simple, unless they went out with their army to another country and took it over by the sword, okay? That never happened in New Zealand, okay? That's why Fee Simple is a load of rubbish. Okay, so, but what it also did was, not only did it knock the king off his perch in terms of, or the crown, off their perch in terms of being landlords, but they also, they were allowed to save their own, you know, family lands, so that's what the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancashire, I think, are, family lands, but, you know, they don't hold a Fee Simple on the rest of the country, right? Because the family lands were probably personally, you know, bought, or they fought for them for someone else, you know, if you want to go and fight somebody over the land, you can get it that way too, but not a good idea. Okay, but what it meant for the rest of the law was that the king and queen, in this case, were below the law, just the same as everybody else, because a lot of the fight behind, and why the kings had said, you know, where the all law comes from, the kings, is because they had this idea of the divine right of kings. Now, the Civil War in England cut that off, finished, gone, right? So, because he was proven to be nothing but a crook, and as I've said quite a few times on these programmes, see you later, Lesha. What I've said quite a few times is that it's like Thomas Paine said, you know, the idea that you can rule from the grave because of a bloodline, or a name, or a title, is just so much nonsense, and it's so much arrogance. Okay, and he's correct, of course. Now, Thomas Paine wrote many very, very, very good texts to bring about the revolution in the United States. Common Sense, I think, is the most, is the pamphlet that everybody should have read of. I haven't read it myself, but apparently it's extremely good. Right, so can we just go, I'm just going to move this up, can we just, yeah, can we go to the top of where you're not, you know, what the preamble, okay. So, what it does is it puts everybody, the crown and the crown especially, it puts under the control, they owe duties then, for the, in return for being able to sit on the throne, they owe duties to the subjects. So, they basically become, you know, it's more subject to you in terms of your rights, because your rights are God-given. They're not given by, you know, man. Okay, so it's rare as the Lord Spiritual and Temporal in common, so Lord Spiritual were sort of church leaders, Temporal were House of Lords, although, you know, they were supposed to be gone under Cromwell, but they're back here, so there was a bit of jiggery-pokery going on, and Commons, which were Parliament, okay, assembled at Westminster, although in the English system you've got Commons and House of Lords together, which is Parliament, but Commons is our Parliament, right, assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon 13 February in the year of our Lord, 1688, present unto their majesties, being called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, okay, and their proper persons means alive, you know, and, you know, nobody signed on their behalf, okay, a certain declaration in writing, made by the said Lords in Commons, that's the Temporal in Commons, Lords in Commons, in the words following this, as, you know, this, heads of abdication, whereas the late King James II, by the assistance of Diver's evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom. So they were, you know, as I say, when Charles II and then going on to James II, this is because we're 30 years on, right, so we had James II by the time they invited William and Mary back, but the laws and liberties of this kingdom, right, so liberties is very important for us, because the laws will do cover us all, and if we're bad, and if we do something against the law, then we will be punished for it, but we also have liberties, right, so if we're not doing anything wrong, and they impinge on our liberties, then they're in trouble, right, so dispensing power, by assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with, and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament. Now this was the one in Fitzgerald and Muldoon, right, now, so you've got to sort of read that first bit again, so with the assistance of Diver's evil counsellors, James II, and the judges and ministers employed by him, assumed and exercised powers of dispensing with and suspending laws, and the execution of laws without the consent of Parliament, right, so they sort of tried to go back to what was happening under Charles I. Okay, the next thing they did, expectate, for those who may want to eradicate the story, thank you, Saoirse, by assuming and exercising a power, oh we had that one, committing prelates, by committing and prosecuting Diver's worthy prelates for humbling petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power, so you had some, you had some probably ministers, Church of England ministers, who said no, we don't want to be in on this, so it's kind of like, it's one of those things that gets translated into, in the Crimes Act, say, interfering with the administration of justice. Okay, so if you wanted to say that, say the Minister of Health, let's say, had got in, we found out that the Minister of Health had somehow, had somehow, say, signed a contract that he knew was a very harmful contract, and then he'd used the Justice Department, let's say, to hide it all, and we were to go after him with a judicial review, for example. We might, and people said, oh yeah, but it wasn't us, we didn't want to be in on it, you know, we could maybe, they could maybe support themselves with, you know, saying well it wasn't us, you know, with that, but Ecclesiastical Commission, by issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes. Now, this is what was called the Star Chamber, right? Now, people have heard about the Star Chamber. This was kind of like a bit of a secret court, yeah, and that was not allowed, that was not allowed. Now, we've got a court like this that's just been in action over the weekend. You would have noticed, maybe some people will, there's a video out of, I did two hours talking to Grant, Grant, sorry, sorry, Grant, what's your second name? Edwards, Grant Edwards, about the woman who'd been down at the Freedom Village, and while she was away, her husband, she was, she came back I think they must have been separated, anyway, went off to the, went off to the family court, got some judge to get the police and arrest her and take her down to Dunedin Mental Hospital to be committed, right, saying she was mentally disturbed, right, because of this, basically, political action. Now, we don't know who that judge was, but we will find out, and I think it's going to be the first hole in the dike as far as, oh, it's an earthquake, where are you little puss? Oh, you're down in the South Island, okay. Yeah, that's, you're in Akaroa, aren't you? Okay, no, we didn't feel it here. So, yeah, I think that, you know, the abolition of the star chain has already happened many hundreds of years ago, but we forgot, we forgot about it all. Levying money, right, here's a good one, Jeff will like this one, levying money for and to the use of the crown by pretense of prerogatives for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament. Now, these tax laws, right, they do, you know, you can't quite say they don't go through Parliament. It seems they do, although most people in Parliament would have no idea about anything to do with the tax laws, because the accountants have made them so, oh, in Patea, oh, wow. So, it's, the earthquake's heading our way, is it? So, that's Akaroa, Patea, nothing here yet. Levying money for the use, yeah. So, I've had a look at the, I've had a look at the tax act, and as far as it applying to anybody but businesses and Lower Hutt, well, as far as it applying to individuals, it doesn't seem that that is actually the case, that they have any permission by Parliament to be taxing individuals. It's a tax on Martin as well. Everybody's feeling it. Oh, let me put my feet down. Can't feel anything yet. Actually, Waiheke doesn't seem to get much shaking. Levying money, OK. So, you know, we can refer back to all of these, because they're basically, they're so simple in their statement of principle that you can build your case around them, right? A standing army, OK, raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law. This was because what the kings would do would, they would basically pauperise the population by saying, OK, you've got to put these people up. We're not going to pay for it out of the treasury. You've got to do this. And they do it in time of peace. So, you don't need to put your soldiers anywhere in a country in time of peace. You're not supposed to be out on the streets, OK? If they're a defence force, right, which is all what we've got, we've only got a defence force, that army is only supposed to be engaged when we've got an outside enemy at our door, OK? They're not supposed to be, and they weren't actually, except they weren't, you know, coming to people's doors and everything like people imagined they were going to, although that was part of the scary, scary stuff too. But, you know, if they put that sort of thing forward, then people need to be talking about, hey, hang on, 1688, these are our rights, you're not supposed to be doing that. And it's a really, look, it's one sentence, isn't that fantastic? You only need to know that one sentence. Disarming Protestants now, this is bad news. This is bad news for the Catholics as well. By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law, OK? Now, also, armed and employed, well, employed, I love that word, because here's the thing, let's say you're not allowed to make, you're not allowed in employment, the Crown is not allowed to make distinctions, right? So you can't say, well, some of these people can be employed and some can't, and because they won't do what we tell them to do, even though we know it's, they can't make us, basically. And also, it is also, I'd say you could use this in laws that pretended to put one part of the population over the other part of the population just because of a, you know, it's basically, it can be used as a bit of a weapon against discrimination, right? The big discrimination in those days, of course, was Protestants and Papists, as they called them, OK? So disarming Protestants, but also, in terms of the guns laws, it certainly would be a fun argument to say, OK, you know, disarming, we've actually got a right to keep our arms because, you know, we're guaranteed them, actually, under the 1688. And here's the funny thing, you know, the Americans were really proud of their amendments, and an amendment is something put on it at a later time, right? So, but they were so hacked off with the Americans, sorry, with the English taking taxes, and you all know about the Boston Tea Party, that they really didn't want anything to do, I guess, with laws that, you know, their system of law is founded upon. You know, this is the same, the Americans are actually covered by this as well, because they'll claim Magna Carta, no problem, OK? Everybody claims Magna Carta, but actually only people who are under the English common law system can claim that. OK, violating elections, by violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament. Now, this is the real, this one here is, you know, if we want to look at election jiggery-pokery, if we want, say, one man, one vote, OK, this is basically the article that we'd be looking at, right? Because our law reflects one man, one vote in the Election Electoral Act 2007, I think it is. Have to have a look at that one. Wrong prosecutions. By prosecution in the court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognisable only in Parliament, and by divis others arbitrary and illegal causes. Now, that's really good language, isn't it? But basically it means it's like prosecuting you for something that is wrong. You know, they haven't got wrong. You know, they haven't got a right to prosecute you. So we talked about this in terms of everything. We are allowed everything. Our liberty is everything as long as it's not forbidden by law, OK? So when they do things like, and I believe that the orders that said you can't go more than 5km from your home and you can't assemble with other people. I think those orders were, and you know the prosecutions under them, were wrong prosecutions. So there you've got your sentence to build on there, right? Jewellery. A face mask infringement, yes. Yes, there you go. That's the one for you, Jeff. Jewellery. And whereas of late, partial, corrupt and unqualified persons had been returned and served in jewellery and trials, and particularly diviners and jewellers in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders. Now, here's an interesting one. Which were not freeholders. And this was one of the things that I think I mentioned in the first one, when I read out to you, was it in that Unlearnable Rights one, the first one where I talked to you about, it's only actually people who had a land ownership, that's right, that were free, well they call them freeholders because they were still imagining that everybody who was occupying land didn't have a, didn't have an allodial basically, because they still had the king here, you know, so they were freeholders. But they were not freeholders. They were because they still had the king here, you know, so they're telling the king, oh don't, you can't do this, if they're freeholders. Now, the people who could serve in jewellery trials had to be freeholders too, okay. So, but once we've got an allodial established, of course everybody will have some part in owning the land, you know. They are not, it's not held at the behest of now Charles III, right, because he's wanting to take over as our new landlord. Excessive bail, excessive bail is required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects. Now, this one here, it goes back to, a lot of it is linked to we shall not sell justice back in, I think it's in the Magna Carta, one part of the Magna Carta, because although you see only a little bit of it, if you actually put the search in for that article of the Magna Carta, there's so many things about, you have to be tried by a jury of your peers, you actually have to have done something wrong first, the evidence has to be correct, and even if you have done something wrong, they can't take away your means of making a living, right. So, that's where those bankruptcy strictures come in, so they can't take everything away, and I would say excessive bail is basically what they were doing in terms of trying to return us to a feudal state and making sure some people lost their jobs, or, you know, that a lot of businesses lost their businesses because then, you know, you could take a lot away. There's a good one for that though, just on its own. Fines and punishments. Excessive fines, this is the thing I'm going to be using when I'm complaining, not just complaining, but defending the right of people to go to the authority or to the employment court and not be, in a way, fined by the judges or the authority members allowing costs against them. Okay. Illegal and cruel punishments. In fact, I already talked about that one, which was Fitzgerald and the Sentencing Commission or something. I can't remember what it was called. Grants of fines. This is a real interesting one. I'm just going to turn the light off. I'll be a second though. Grants of fines and forfeitures. Several grants and promises of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be leading. This is what I think should have been run in the Babywell case. Those parents hadn't been convicted of anything and yet they were made to forfeit their child. Right. There's a lot of thinking and working out to do in that one, but I think that that is one that should have been run. All of which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm. That sentence refers back to all of those things right back to 1275 in our case. Because remember, this is 1688. The known laws and statutes were the ones that were already established there. So we have those all in there as well. And whereas the late King James Scotland, having abdicated the government and the throne, being thereby vacant, His Highness the Prince of Orange, whom it has pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from potpourri and arbitrary power, did, by the advice of the Lord Spiritual and Temporal and Divers Principal Persons of the Common, cause letters to be written to the Lord Spiritual and Temporal, being Protestants and other letters, to several countries, cities, universities, boroughs and zirc ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament to meet and sit at Westminster upon 22nd January in this year, 1688, in order to such an establishment as their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections have been accordingly made. Now, when we get to our military trials, this is going to be more or less what they're going to do. The late King James, we'll probably call him Chippy, having abdicated government, and I don't think we get, but we're not going to have another King, don't worry, guys. We're going to probably have what they did after the Civil War in England and have a military tribunal. But I don't think that, I think we're going to have to demand that we don't have any more political parties for a start, because they're nothing more than gangs and people going to have to be elected independently. And also, make sure, guys, this is my advice, that they only ever get the average wage, right, so nothing like $120,000. They get, you know, what everybody else says. And, of course, we have a term on them, probably two years. Yeah, that's right. The canton's good. You know, talking of the Swiss, people might know that the Swiss Prime Minister and the Minister of Health got re-arrested, and this was by the efforts of some individual who followed the no-jab-no-job situation right to its logical end. And, yeah, so all good things to the Swiss. Term limits, yes. Subjects' rights. And then we go back to the beginning again. So it's kind of funny the way this Act is set up. Yeah, because we've been through no dispensing power, late dispensing, illegal, et cetera, et cetera. To get more sort of historical background as to where they got to by 1688, have a good look at those, what do you call them, all the Acts before then, you know, the known freedoms and liberties and laws that they're referring to before they, yeah, freedom of speech. Oh, yeah, hang on, have we got some more? Okay. Subjects' arms. Oh, of course there is. Sorry, subjects' arms. The subjects, which are Protestants. Oh, good thing we didn't, where's it gone? Right to petition. Oh, no, no. Okay, levying money. Late dispensing. Oh, late dispensing. Okay, the subjects' rights, okay. Okay, and thereon, the said laws spiritual and temporal and commons pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most, and by the way, there were no political parties, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining a foresaid, do in the first place, as their ancestors in like case have usually done, so this is the customs, for the vindicating and asserting of the ancient rights and liberties. Okay, and the way they do it is Section 5 of this Act we're discussing, and that is the retention in New Zealand of the common law and the equity and the remedies, etc., of equity. So the way they actually deal with all these things is not by, you know, sharia law or anything else, right? It's dispensed, it's all actually as our ancestors had usually done under English common law. No dispensing power. Pretended power of suspending laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal. That should put the end to the argument about was it legal without the consent of Parliament, in particular, because they will say, oh yeah, but, you know, under Section 8, I think it is, of the 2020 Act they were allowed to make orders, but they had no, under Section 8, they had no power to make an order that had anything to do with vaccinating people, right? It wasn't there. Okay, so they pretended that they were suspending, I guess, they pretended that they were suspending the Health Act 1956, which says at Section 92L that you're definitely not allowed to, in a public health emergency, you're not allowed to, you know, make people have medical treatments, okay? So under, you know, this is probably the first part I'll start with, with the judicial review. Pretended power of suspending laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal because all of those orders came out and people like Chipkins or Jacinda, she signed some, Chippy signed some, yeah, I think the Minister of, I think, what's his name, Wood, I think he signed some as well. They were all having turns, right? Without the consent of Parliament. Late dispensing illegal, so late in this case means, you know, just prior, just, you know, about 1687 probably. Pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority as has been assumed and exercised of late is illegal. So same thing, but they're just referring to, you know, what's happened because, you know, just to bring it to people's attention, what dogs these people were. Okay, yeah, excessive costs put on someone in the court case, yeah, that was that one further up, I think. Ecclesiastical courts are illegal. This was to stop, you know, the church, the Catholic church in particular, taking money off people, you know, like fining people for doing sins or something, I suppose. Okay, levying money, the levying of money for the use for or of the use of the Crown by pretense or prerogatives without grant of Parliament for longer time or in other manner than the same is, shall be granted as illegal. That's an interesting one and I think these are going to be very interesting in terms of how much they took out of the Treasury to pay the press, for example, right. So, you know, I mean, we got taxed but we didn't know that they were going to, which was levying money, we didn't know they were going to spend it on, you know, like handing it out to their mates or using it to bribe the media. Okay, so we can use that one, that will be a real good one, that'll be fun, that one. Right to petition, there's a right of the subjects to petition the King. Nah, we're not going to do that because we're not going to have any Kings. Standing army, yeah, prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. Or commitments, yeah, so they used to put people in jail if they tried to, you know, sort of say, well, I've got a right to, you know, ask the King for X, Y, Z, but that's one that's probably not going to. The rating of keeping a standing army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law, is against the law. And I would say, you know, let them run about the place and, you know, hurt the, you know, hurt the populaces against the law. Subjects' arms, that subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. So it's and as allowed, okay, so maybe that means, you know, if you're Protestant you can have a bazooka, I don't know. But yeah, definitely Protestants need to put their hand up. Freedom of election. Now Protestants actually is interesting. We might say that we're all Protestants, right, and even the Catholics could say they're Protestants because they're Protestants, okay. People are saying I need to have my gun, okay. Notice arms as an American amendment. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Yeah, well, the Americans used this, used the 1688 to write up their amendments, Jeff. They didn't mention it too much, but they did, and I think it was, I think it was Thomas Paine who helped them with it. Thomas Paine was an Englishman. I think I mentioned before he was a customs agent. Okay, freedom of election. The election of members of Parliament ought to be free, yep. We don't, but I think we could also say that we have members of Parliament forced upon us by the list system. So, you know, it's actually, I would say the, even though we apparently agreed to have mixed member, what was it, what have we got? Proportional representation, right, with, there's no point to it without political parties, right. Every person should have to stand, and we're going to get a chance, make our own rules, okay. Freedom of speech, this was for Parliament, okay, would not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. So, you know, you can say what you want in Parliament. That's fine, not a problem, but she doesn't get away with it because she wasn't in Parliament when she was saying things like safe and effective and telling lies and encouraging people to, you know, encouraging people to treat the unvaccinated like they were second-class citizens. Excessive bail, excessive bail will not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now, I think there was even talk about that in terms of, you know, they were fining the businesses $12,000, and I think that prior to that, which was done illegally, of course, because the enforcement, and they'll be sued under Section 129 of the Health Act, which is, yeah, they're free, they could do enforcement, but it had to be in good faith. And I mean, I think the excessive bail, sorry, the excessive fine is a very good indication that it was to scare people into keeping their shops closed, etc. Jewelries, that jewelries ought to be duly empanelled and returned, and that was amended on the 22nd of June 1825. Okay, I'm not sure exactly why that was done. If you were interested, you could go and have a look up 6 George, that's GEO, the 4th, Clause 50, it's an Imperial Act, okay, but if you just put that in, you'll find why they did that. Grants of forfeitures, all grants of forfeitures, we had that one before, that's a great one, I think. Frequent parliaments, that for redress, so they can't keep a parliament, and they can't keep the government in place forever and ever. And I think that this is the principle of what on earth would they think they were doing in keeping a state of emergency, or not a state of emergency, but a preparation for an emergency in place for two years plus, and they've still got the Darn Act hanging around, that should be questioned, okay. Redress for all grievances, and for amending, strengthening and preserving the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently. Well, we can say, you know, we don't need to have them there all of the time, okay. I think they should only be allowed to meet a couple of times a year, because we've got more than enough laws, most of them need chucked out. They do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular premises as their endowed rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, judgments, doings, hang on, I have to get rid of that so I can see what I'm doing, all proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought to in any ways be drawn hereafter into consequence, or for example, which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged, but by the declaration of His Highness the Prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full dress, a redress and remedy therein. So basically chuck out all of the all of the laws that prejudice the undoubted rights and liberties, etc, of the people. Right, so they were doing a clean sweep under this Bill of Rights, because they had a very dirty Parliament, dirty system to clean up as we do. Tender of the Crown, this is all about the King and all about the dignity of the King, because they were still a bit worried that they'd get their heads chopped off the same way as Charles I, and I think that this is about, you know, that's like, okay, you come back and you promise all of this stuff, and we'll promise you that we're not going to, you know, the King cannot be, cannot be, have his head chopped off again. New Oaths of Allegiance, that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons, now this is a great one guys, of whom the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy might be required by law instead of them, and that the said Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy be abrogated. So the Allegiance was, then I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and be a true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary, so help me God. Now, if any of you get around to watching what I was talking to Grant about on Saturday, these people who are doing all of this real bad stuff, my believers, that, you know, they don't believe in God. These judges have sworn to uphold the law, but they've sworn it on the Bible, they haven't sworn it on the Quran, they haven't sworn it on, affirmed it, right? Where is that, Linz, which is what you're looking for, Linz? Oh, I'll send it over to you. The Grant Edwards interview. The Grant Edwards interview, I'll send it over to you, and you can... Yeah, I was going to say, is it on Podbean or something, because I can... Let's see, he sent it to me today. Well, he sent it to me yesterday, and I haven't even had a chance to look at it yet. Oh, that's okay, no worries. I'll send it to you soon. Yeah, so, you know, this is the thing, and I remember when Chief Justice... Was he Chief Justice? I'm trying to remember what he was. It was certainly on the Supreme Court. William Young. William Young must have got to the end of his term and got hired to go to Kuwait and be in their court, right? It was a commercial court to do with international trade and stuff like that, okay? But what did he swear on? Because you can bet that he didn't swear on the Bible, all right? Anyway, he... And I think I've mentioned it in one of the Zooms. He actually, out of embarrassment, had to resign because a couple of the Irish judges got... Who they'd also recruited from Ireland to be on this panel, must have got a lot of flak off the Irish people about being in a jurisdiction that had such bad human rights records. It's like, you know, going to work for the CCP, right? You go into... I don't even know if they have courts in China. I wonder. Probably they do. But, you know, you'd have to... Because the jurisdiction reflects, basically... I mean, this is what's so shocking about the trashing of our human rights. They're based on Judeo-Christian law. They're based on the Ten Commandments. That's why people are swearing on the... The judge swears an oath of allegiance, okay, to the king. But this was sort of replacing the king again as, you know... This was replacing the divine right of kings to a certain extent, right? But in 1952, we've got an Act of Parliament that says the crown... This Act binds the crown, and you'll see that in every Act of Parliament. So, yeah, the crown is subservient to us now. But I think about this time, it was an oath of allegiance to the king. But they're still swearing it, yeah? But it's basically swearing to uphold the law, is what they're doing now. And the law, in terms of our unalienable rights, is what we're going through with now. Supremacy, I don't think we need to go on about that. I do swear from my heart... Oh, this might be interesting though. I do swear that I do, from my heart, abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position that princes, excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or by the authority of the Sea of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. This was how they were making sure that there was an oath basically taken that you weren't going to, you know, kill the king again on the orders of the Pope, right? And I do declare that no foreign prince... Now, this is fantastic, for the ones who want to take us over and the courts are allowing it. I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate has or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God. Okay? No, this is our nation state. This is our nation, the same as the Americans, under the law of God. Okay? No, we're not having any sharia law here. Thank you very much. And I don't know what on earth the English should think they're doing. Acceptance of the crown. So then the crown get, you know, William and Mary get crowned. Two houses to sit. Now, this was the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That doesn't really apply to us. There's some interesting things in the American Constitution that might be of interest in whether we should have two houses or one. There's an idea that you have regions and then your regions themselves sit under something else. But anyway, it's still to be ironed out, that one. But we've got enough to be doing at the moment. We're just making sure that we use this. Subjects, liberties to be allowed, ratifying, confirming and establishing the declaration and the articles, and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein, contained by the force of a law made in due form by the authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indivisible rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom. Okay? We have that in New Zealand. Isn't that fantastic? And so shall be esteemed, allowed, a judge deemed and taken to be, and that all and every particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly held and observed. So none of this cultural relativism, none of this, what do they call it? No difference to be made between the people in terms of their cultures, etc. etc. One law for all, right? Under God. And that all and every particular shall be firmly and strictly held and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration. And that all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come. That's fine. Because, you know, the crown is vacated. That's fine. We've still got the law. All of the law is still held to us under the under the 1988 Act, which is exactly 300 years, isn't it? William and Mary, yeah, we'll leave that. Limitation of the crown. That's an interesting one. For preventing all questions and divisions of this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown. Now this is all to do with that, you know, it goes down through the ears of the body. And, you know, you can't go claiming the crown willy nilly. And this is why, you know, there's so much worry all the time about if you've got kings there, you know, who was married to whom? And were they, you know, have they got kids somewhere else? Nothing to do with the rights of the people, actually, because we've already got them preserved to us. Papists debarred the crown. Now this one got, this one has got a, this one's got a some repeal. Okay, so section one. This act continues to be part of the laws of New Zealand. But as if this section had been amended by deleting or any king or queen marrying a papist, and, or shall marry a papist, and, or marrying. And this was changed on the 26th of March 2015 by section 10 of the Royal Succession Act, which I think is an English act, because it was the English who changed it, because, what's his name, Charles wanted to marry Camilla. And that was obviously the plan in 2015. And they just wanted to marry who they wanted to without having to take any notice of what happened all those years ago. And then they've got to take a declaration. The coronation, so they have to take the coronation oath. Okay, that's got to happen. It's supposed to be in June of this year for his lordship. If under 12 years old, that's about regency. King's assent. Now, all which their majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by the authority of this present parliament and shall remain, stand, shall remain the law of this realm forever. And the same are by their said majesties and by the advice and consent of the Lord Spiritual, Temple and Commons and Parliament assembled. Yeah, so basically, yeah, that he gave his assent to it, even though he wasn't supposed to, but never mind. Nod obstentous made a void. What was that? I read that up and I can't remember what it was. Yeah, it's something, actually, it's quite important to do something to do with the, it's something to do with them taking out something in the 2020 Act whereby Parliament could look at the orders after a certain time and say, no, we're not, you know, take that out now, that's finished, because the Parliament could. But then they changed it a little way in, and I think from memory that one there might be interesting. Legal status. Reprints are legal status. Reprints are presumed to correctly state as the date of this reprint. The law enacted by the principal enactment and by the amendments to that enactment, Section 18 of the Legislation Act 2012 provides that this reprint, published in electronic form, has the status of an official version under Section 17 of that Act. A printed version of the reprint produced directly from this official electronic version also has official status. That means if you want to print it off, it has the same status as what's on the screen, and it has the same status as it had in 1688, right down to the present day. I don't think the editorial and format changing to reprints are made using the powers under Section 24 to 26 of the Legislation Act 2012. Okay, and there we go. That's it. So I guess you're all buzzing with your newfound treasure. I talked quite a bit about using the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think it's worth repeating again so people absolutely know it for sure. Section 5, I can't see that it's workable. I think it needs to be taken out. Well, it could still be in use because that's that balancing section, but when they use it to balance group rights against individual rights, I've got it wrong. That's my view. Okay, Jeff's got his hand up. Jeff, you've got your hand up, mate. I have to say, Liz, that this has been one of the most amazing things that you've ever done, in my humble opinion. I have looked at the 1688 thing occasionally, looking at the Imperial Rights Act, but I've never, ever gone through it. I've made so many notes here. You've done such a bang up job, it really boggles the mind. Magna Carta, if I can touch on that first. There was a lawyer, I've mentioned this before, there was a lawyer in Kaikoura when I was defending Naomi. I said, look, I want a jury trial. Oh, you can't have a jury trial. I said, well, I can under Magna Carta. Magna Carta, what's that? I kid you not, he had to ring his office and ask his secretary what the Magna Carta was. So that gives you some idea as to where some of these lawyers are. Fines and punishment. Now, that's interesting. I know of a lady who was fined $4,000 infringement under this court, you know, when they were confined in MIQ. Oh, yes. What was interesting was this, OK, the standing army, where are we sending, how is it we're sending troops to Afghanistan? That surely is contrary to what it says in the 1688. Yes, we call the defence force. We call the defence force. Why? Yeah, what the hell are we doing? Exactly. Election fraud, that's interesting as well. Wrong prosecutions, that's an interesting one as well. And also it talks about imposing fines before somebody's been charged or found guilty. I know I've banged on about it, but that's not the infringement. They imposed the fine on me before I'd even. Yeah, before you've been before any court and had a right and cleared or anything. Yeah, I know. Presumably that would also apply to a speeding ticket. Ah, yes. Yeah. Well, on the speeding ticket, they always say you have right to, if you're not going to pay it, if you pay it, all's gone. If you're not going to pay it and you're going to defend it in court, then you need to give us a call. But I'm not sure that that is even legal, actually. But anyway, so you can go and defend it in court. And then if you're convicted, then that's. But, you know, this is the thing too. You know, I think we're going to have to have a hang the shake-up. It's going to be like, you know, a house full of junk. I don't know if anybody's ever been into a house full of junk and the hoarder. It's just amazing where they pull everything out onto the lawn. Or you see, have you ever watched those hoarder ones on TV, right? And they live in squalor, absolute squalor. And then everything gets put out on the lawn and they have a hell of a job because they have a mental problem with it. But then when it's all put back, they love it. It's like, oh, I can breathe. I can think. I can, you know, it's like getting rid of all the crud that's all around us here and just that's what we need to do with our law. We need to drain our swamp. Yeah, drain our swamp. Yeah, that's the thing about standing for Parliament. The way that I read, it would tend to say that I don't have to be a New Zealand citizen if I want to stand for election to office. Well, the thing is, if you read that one about, you know, no foreign nations, etc., etc., if they're in a position in Parliament, right, if we've got foreign, and this is a great hobbyhorse of Kate Floss, if we've got people who are non-New Zealanders in Parliament, then there's always a danger that they'll be having a hand in making law or, you know, promulgating law. But I haven't got a problem, basically, with people coming from other countries. But if they are only getting into Parliament because they've got a political party who's pushing them, that's wrong. See, that's why we need to get rid of political parties, because all of this crud that's in Parliament, a lot of it is the party list people. So please, I beg of you, if anybody is thinking about Parliament or they're thinking about political parties, you know, don't hang on an idol's coattail and say, oh, I'll get in on the party list. Yeah, it's wrong. On the same token, Liz, there are people, and it's obvious to anybody, who are New Zealanders, who are in Parliament, are nothing but traitors. Oh, yeah, exactly. Well, exactly. And it doesn't mean that, you know, New Zealanders, New Zealand-born New Zealanders, are going to be better representatives than anybody else. I'd say we've probably got, you know, per head of population, we've got more corrupt people than anywhere else in the world. It really is amazing to see. Because we've only got small bureaucracies when we think of it. And yet, you know, 90% of the people, you know, and the bureaucracy in this country is huge. The so-called public service is huge in this country compared to other industries. And so, you know, the corruption is really, really bad. Or maybe it's just that they're actually not challenged enough. You know, because you'll notice if they make a regulatory catcher. Exactly right. Thank you, reminding us of regulatory catcher. Public serpents. Yeah, I'm put off my stride now, thinking about public serpents. What did you say, Mark? 450? 4,500? Anyway, a lot. A lot of them. Okay, so I'm pretty much talked out. Jeff has got us thinking. Come on, guys. What are you going to use all of these fantastic, you know, tell us some stories. Tell us some more stories or some plans of attacks. Well, I've had a win with Binzad Post. Oh, have you? Yes, I sent a thing back in December. They said they delivered it. And the people to whom it was sent said it never arrived. I made more phone calls to New Zealand Post than you can shake a stick at. They never called back. So eventually, last week, I wrote and I told them, I want transcripts of all the phone calls. I'm going to the disputes tribunal if you don't pay up by Friday of this week. So they wrote back and said, well, we'll treat it as an Official Information Act request. We'll give you the information by the 13th of March. So I said, well, thank you very much. That really doesn't matter. I'm still off to the disputes tribunal if you don't pay me by Friday. Next day, I get an email saying we don't do transcripts, but here are recordings overnight sent. And they said, well, you know, you can bug off. I'm still off to the disputes tribunal. Today, I get an email saying please fill out this claim form, send us your bank details, and we'll source it. That's a great story. That's a great story, Jeff. Fantastic. But it just shows you, you know, you get the confidence of these weapons of law, you know, and especially these ones. I mean, they're just precious, aren't they? You can use them for anything, you know. And look how long it's taken for us to go through and talk about it. And you guys are the first recipients, but I'm sure that you'll share around, because this will go on to rumble, share it around to people. There were a lot of views of the first one, apparently. What's the number of views on the first one, Em? It was about 550, which is high for, yeah, normally it's around sort of 60. Regular union ones, yeah, I think it's very attractive for people. Facebook Live views is two, I suppose. There's sometimes a lot of those. Sometimes they can get up into the thousands, but those are while they, you know, they're sort of fresh in people's minds. But the best, the good thing about them being on rumble now is that we can refer to them and people don't have to go back. Like, sometimes I'll say, oh, I did something so many weeks ago. And then people can go and find it easily on rumble, and they can share them, whereas they can't share if they watch them on the page. Yeah, that's correct, isn't it, Em? Yeah, yeah, they, I did make it, I have, there is a link on the website that takes you to the union rumble channel. Yeah, so, yeah, or if you just want to do it easy, you just put in rumble, go to the platform, and then put in, um, WN, what is it? Yeah, U-N-Z, yeah, and then you'll find it. Yeah, okay. Let me just say one more thing before we go. Erica has sent me a link to this huge contract relating to... Oh, this is so interesting, Jeeves. Yeah, and she asked me about the liability. Well, she told me where to find it. But the interesting thing to me was that that is a contract, and it's not the same as an insurance policy. And so liability in that contract is not the same as in an insurance policy. And I sent her a link to the difference between a claim and a suit. And so you can file a claim under an insurance policy, which somebody is liable for, but may not be liable under the contract. And to me, that is the difference between what Erica was asking about. I did send it to her. I haven't heard anything from her since, but I see she's here, and I would appreciate her thoughts on that. But I still reckon we can go after them with the liability insurance, even though they may not be liable under a contract. Yeah, yeah, that's right. The contract that Jeeves is talking about is a very, very interesting contract. This is a woman called Sasha Latipova. I think it's L-A-T-Y-P-O-V-A. Sasha, S-A-S-H-A. And she is a woman that you might get her video. It's quite a long watch. I first saw part of it about a month ago, but since then, some people have started sharing the full one. And the contract she's talking about, she was investigating. It's just something to do with the contracting business of pharmaceuticals, let's say. Pharmaceutical contracts. And what she found out was that the contracts that had been given to what we would have sort of fondly imagined were little or rather large Pfizer-owned manufacturing or licensed to Pfizer facilities are actually consistent with about, I think it's about 4,000 Defence Department facilities. And the way that the money got spent out of the US Treasury by the Defence Department was that they renamed these manufacturing facilities for the vaccine, they renamed them as small business units. And they have a, apparently, you know, because Congress has to look at all of the spending that the Defence Department is doing. But when they want to buy special weapons, etc., they have this sort of off balance sheet, basically. But this was billions got spent. And she explains it really well, what the legal contractual wording and what it actually means. But they were buying weapons. This came under the rubric of weapons. And the American people, yeah, and they also came under something called demonstrations. So you can kind of understand that they were, it wasn't a medical response. It was a strategic battle response, I suppose, against the own population. But this was apparently also why they weren't particularly fussy about the quality of the vaccines. And so that's why the lots were, some of them were deadly, and some of them were pretty harmless, because, you know, basically these, they were producing weapons, not something to make people better. So it's a really interesting video. Yeah, if you probably, if you put that name in and do a bit of searching around, somebody will come up with it. But the contract, when Erica sent the contract over, she said, I found it. This is the contract. And I looked at it and I thought, gosh, where on earth has this come from? And then I said, how'd you get this? She said, oh, and it's also, it's got black spaces in it. And I said, what are they for? And she said, oh, those are official Information Act redactions, right? So, yeah, it was, it's not, it's not hacked from anywhere. It's not, you know, it says it's private and all that stuff. But no, it's come out under Official Information Act by one of the, someone in the States, probably this terrifically talented Sasha lady. And Erica froze the video and looked at the contract number and found it. So she's so clever. So I don't know how many people in the United States are looking at that now, but quite a few of us in New Zealand have had a look at it now. But that's what it is. So it's going to be a marvellous piece of evidence, obviously, for when all of these crooks finally get put before the military tribunals, I think. That's just my guess. I'm not saying I know anything about it, but that would be my guess. From history. And I've tried all of the stuff before. Okay, so time for, time for leaving now. What's the time? I think I've talked myself out anyway. Great job, Lou. Great job. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. And thank you for your help. There's evidence everywhere. It's breaking the mass formation of ignorance here. That's right, Erica. There's so much evidence. I think it's a bit of a, it's a bit of a mind boggle at the moment, especially for people who are having trouble concentrating. Yeah, it's hard. Okay, so good night all. Yep, thank you so much, Liz. That was amazing. And yeah, I look forward to watching the, re-watching the Zoom, yeah, to make more notes. Yeah, well, you know, everybody, I'd love to hear you, you know, the stories of what you're going to be doing and who you've been talking to and, you know, spread it around, guys. We need to, we need to start a conversation about this fantastic piece of legislation that belongs to us. Okay. Thanks everyone for coming along, as always, and we will see you on Friday. Okay, see you later. Thanks, everybody all. Thanks, Heath. See you later. Bye. Bye.