The speaker mentions having conversations with Shane at the Shooter's Single Agency and sending him some information about personal injury. They discuss the possibility of using personal liability to their advantage. They also mention the $20 million insurance coverage for the cops. The speaker then talks about an upcoming event and their expectations for it. They mention the Shooter's Bar and the ongoing issues Shane has been facing. They discuss the legal framework for the sale and supply of alcohol and the concept of a place of resort. The speaker examines the relevant sections of the act and provides some insights into the guidelines and factors that determine whether a gathering is considered a place of resort. They also touch on the need for warrants and the importance of clear charges in legal proceedings. The speaker expresses concerns about the police's actions and emphasizes the importance of freedom of political speech. They suggest organizing future events with a focus on s
Before we get started, please may I make a quick point? Yes, go on. Do you want to record it? I have to go out in about 10 minutes for half an hour, but I did just want to mention that I had a couple of very interesting conversations with Shane at the Shooter's Single Agency. Oh, right, right, right, yep. I did send him some information, he didn't know about personal injury and all the rest of it, so he was quite intrigued.
So I just managed to send him one document and then I went and messed up with my custom real low-tech style. So anyway, I just wanted to mention that I have been in touch with him and set the wheels Excellent, excellent, that's great. Yeah, they're not going to be liking to be sued, that's for sure. No, good idea. Reminded that they've got nice big insurances. Exactly, exactly. $20 million for kick-off with the cops. That's a good start.
Yep, it sure is. Welcome along everybody. Everybody that's watching on Facebook, either the live or the recording, thanks for coming along on this happy Friday night. I will be getting my money from the post office next week, I am assured. Oh, it didn't turn up this week. But they've really got the skates on. It's amazing what they've been able to do when they were threatened. Oh, exactly, exactly. Really amazing. Anyway, there we go. Good evening. Very good, very good.
Are you off taking people around the Bay of Islands, eh, tonight? No, just a group out for dinner, that's all, and then back later. Oh, okay, very nice. It's my Zooms, if it's affordable. Yeah, well, we're going to talk about Shooters Saloon first, because, you know... Can you wait while I get back? I'd love to not miss that. I'll be back by 22.8. Well, no, well, if you're going in two minutes. I'm not going to spend the whole time on it, and people will come back to it.
When you come back, we'll come back to it again. But how many... We've only got a few people here. It's only... Are we early? Unmute. Yeah, it's just... Oh, just three. Okay. It's 3.15. I think sometimes Fridays can be a bit low in the registration. Yeah, people's all in, yeah. Yeah, registration takes a little more time, so there'll be more people, I'm sure. Yeah, it does take a little more time. Should we give them until five past? We'll just...
We'll see how many are in at five past, and then away we'll go. Yeah. Awesome. Awesome, awesome. So looking forward to hearing about what you've got to tell us about tonight, Liz. There's some... I think that the other stuff is kind of... You know, the Shooter's Bar one is really interesting. You know, people thought that once What's Face was gone, that... Oh, I need to show people my T-shirt. Love it. Be kind. That was a present from Liz Gunn.
Yep, yep. She got that one, but she had quite a few of them, so... Different sorts of ones, so that was the one she gave me. Yeah. So, yeah, people thought once her Queen Wasp was gone, that, you know, things would be a wee bit different, but it sounds like her pretty boy Chiptains is continuing on the same sort of mafioso style of putting the heavies on people. As far as I know, Jeff might know, has Shane from the bar been having a lot of trouble for quite a long period of time now? Yeah.
Because his bar was closed down. He lost his licence, right? Yeah, he did all right for a while, flying under the radar, but then... I didn't ask him that. I was sort of explaining to him about this personal liability thing and how we might be able to use it to his advantage and also the advantage of his customers. Okay. Because they should own him. Yeah. So there's... Yeah, well, that's right, because there was a... I had a look at the Act.
I saw the... Excuse me. I saw the recording that... What's his name? Had done. Binny Eastwood. Binny Eastwood had done. And then, of course, I heard the words, a place of resort. So I sent you over, Emma. Yes, you did. Do you want me to go through that? If we can look at the place of resort, what that means. Okay. 100%. What's it called? The Sale and Supply of Liquor Act 2012, I think. You sent that to me on...
It's on the police website. So I just sent a link to it. You sent me the link. Did you send it? I can't remember. You sent me on Messenger or... I sent it on your email, I think. Oh, email. That's it. Yeah. This is the trouble with lots of communications. It's all right. I was just a bit scoffing my face before I came on here, so... So now you're in a sleepy space. Yeah, well, more than normal.
It's hard to get time to even stop and have dinner now. I've got a table with everything on it, all bits of... writing, and then I clear a little space and have my dinner. Yeah. Cone. That's it. I'll share screen. Okay. Thanks. There we go. Okay. So now, here's a phrase beloved to you. Here's a phrase beloved to you. I've got to get back on my screen now. It's gone. I'm back. Here's a phrase beloved to you.
Let's see. I'll push this up so I've got some more. To you, Jeff. This is guidance on New Zealand Police's approach. Well, when I first saw that, my eyes lit up because I thought, guidance. Because we know that guidance was the thing that all of the Ministry Health was dishing out in great dollops to everyone and sundry, and WorkSafe was doshing it out, and Employment New Zealand was doshing it out. Most of it is shared in paragraph 20 of the, what's the name of the case? This is the one I was doing.
HLI and VMZ, right? And this is the case where the person, I said, you know, we won three out of four, but the most interesting part of that was paragraph 20. There was some initial, and this is what it says, there was some initial confusion as to whether the order covered the role of a tug engineer. Initially, the advice provided by the Ministry of Health was that it did not. But subsequently, that advice changed to say that it did cover people such as the plaintiff.
Such advice is not legally binding. The issue will turn on the wording of the order itself and the application of it to the circumstances of the plaintiff's employment. On the basis of the evidence currently before the court, it is arguable that the plaintiff was not covered by the order. But this thing about advice and guidance, right? Often not legally binding. However, when we do go down, we do find, so we'll just quickly go over what the sort of the tenor of the guidance is.
Because what they're saying is that the police, under the guidance, that organisers of community events generally enjoy strong relationships with the police and work together to ensure events are well run, safe, enjoyable and lawful. Okay? The information below is intended to guide police and our partners on our approach in this area. It is important, and this is so true, it is important that the police, that communities have trust and confidence in the police. Okay? Because, remember, we need them, but they actually need us to have trust and confidence in them.
That has been destroyed so badly. It's not the frontline police generally, right? The guys who went down there were getting a fair bit of ISIL, I saw Vinny's thing. And he was mouthing off a fair bit, you know, talking about rape and plunder and God knows what. That's bad, you know? And murderers and stuff like that. You know, doesn't help, actually. I must say that. Doesn't help. But there'd been a long, it looks like a long period where the owner had been hassled by the police.
Now, the police, whatever, you know, I have all sympathy for workers, right? The police who are working are taking, you know, to keep their jobs. They have to follow orders. They have to follow orders. Now, I'm more interested, especially in applying our fundamental rights, on getting the people who are making the orders, right? Right? So I don't think it's particularly helpful to hassle police in these situations. They shouldn't have been there. But, you know, you can see that there's guys writing in notebooks, right? Who were going to be talking about the tenor of this, what was going on at the bar.
Okay. So if we go up a little bit further. And the Saline Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 provides the overarching legal framework. When we see that means we need to look at the Act. The object of the Act, they've taken, they've repealed the purpose and they're calling it the object. The sales, supply and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly. And the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.
Then we go down and then you can go and have a look at the Act itself and I'll talk about that in a minute. The BYO in legislation, the only reference to BYO in the Act is in the context of on-licences. So BYO is a bit of a tomb of art, if you like. BYO restaurants may obtain an endorsement on their on-licence, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. The buying and taking of alcohol to another place to consume is not unlawful in itself unless, for example, there is an alcohol ban in place.
Okay. So, you know, people can continue to have parties, et cetera, et cetera. Okay. Now let's go to what is the place of resort because it is under the Act. The place of resort offence, and you've got to remember, guys, he didn't get arrested and taken away anywhere, by the way. They mucked up the party but they didn't arrest him and I don't think they would have been able to get this past the court except with a great, well, I don't think they would have got it past the court and I don't think they actually wanted to take it to court.
I think they wanted to put the frighteners on people. So it's very important that we look at these acts because remember what I've said before, it is only what is in the Act that can be used. Okay. But this place of resort that they're talking about, offence, is in Section 235 of the Act and what it says, it marks the line between lawful but unlicensed drinking environments and the kind of social gathering that will require an alcohol licence.
Under Section 235, it is an offence for a person to allow their unlicensed premises to be used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol. Section 36 creates an accompanying offence for any person found consuming alcohol on the premises. Right? So neither of those was brought into play. I had a look at the actual offences themselves. I didn't look at Section 36 because there didn't seem to be anybody else that was hassled in terms of...
This was an interesting thing. On the video, somebody said, well, we were stopped going into the toilets for a while and then they let us in. They must be watching out for what's going to happen with the Taupo Tennis Club. Okay? They're all getting very, very cagey about making sure people are allowed to go into the toilets. Okay. Okay. Subsections 1 and 2. So Subsection 1 is about, you know, if you're the occupier of a premises, et cetera, et cetera, you're not allowed to sell or supply or display it for sale, et cetera, et cetera.
So Subsection 1, I'm always interested in the subsections that do not apply. Okay? So A, by any person on any premises on which a person resides, whether that person is the occupier or not. Okay. Now, this seems to have been... Shane was talking a lot about, I live here, I live here. Well, so it doesn't apply to him. Okay? So, but, so then B is supplied. So alcohol is supplied by any person by way of a gift to any person who resides on the premises on which the alcohol is consumed.
So if you take along your... This seems to me to be the way a BYO should work, that you should take along the alcohol and give it as a gift to your host. Right? So a person who acts as if he or she were an occupier or a person having any part of the care, management or control of the premises is to be treated as the occupier of the premises. And five, premises may be treated as being kept or used as a place of resort for the consumption of alcohol, even though they are only for the use of particular people or particular classes of people who wish to use them.
Now, this is to stop the use of what's known as drinking clubs. Right? And we can see this when we go back down to the police guidance. Okay? So take it down a little bit further, will you, Em? So in the first... Sorry, what are the factors that they take into account? So just down... Sorry, up a little bit, down a bit. So we can see here, place of resort. Okay. Features that turn a lawful gathering into a place of resort include...
Now, these are the sort of stuff that they'd argue in court, right, if they had a taking of care. People gathering specifically to drink, which must be a substantial, although not necessarily the main purpose of people attending. So this place of resort is idea and something in the Act is good. There's nothing wrong with it. You don't want unlicensed premises where they haven't got a manager, making sure people aren't getting, you know, fighting, becoming intoxicated, et cetera, et cetera.
That's why you have licensed premises, right? So the main purpose is not to turn it into a drinking club, basically. Drinking that reaches a certain threshold of intensity involving more than isolated or casual consumption of alcohol in a passing or transitory way. A passing or transitory way is very difficult to understand, but I guess if you saw a case, the court would be able to tell you what that was. Then this is the one that they would have had to watch out for the most, okay? So can you take it up a little bit? I'm sorry, I can't.
I should take that one off so I can see that. Oh, no, I didn't want to do that. Anyway, I'll just move that over there. The BYO aspect, being actively facilitated, example, explicitly advertised or encouraged or managed. So it's a possibility that they are going to have a go, but if they are going to have a go, it will be on the BYO aspect because what happened there didn't fall into either of the top categories. So they say all of these features must be present for a breach of Section 35 to occur.
Okay, so there's not going to be any further action because according to their guidelines, you've got to have all of the features, okay? So you can't just have one without the other two, okay? When assessing where the premises is being used lawfully as a place of resort because that must have been the case law they're looking at, right? In assessing the first two factors, police will look at the purpose and nature of the event and the level of drinking, intoxication and resulting harm.
For the third factor, police may look at any advertising or promotion of BYO for the event as well as any activity that seeks to manage the consumption of alcohol outside of licensed areas. So I would say there's going to be no further action. However, this is where we need to look. I looked a little bit in the Section 94 of the sale of that Act and it's about a local alcohol policy, okay? So Section 94.1 of the Act, this is the sale and supply of liquor, a local alcohol policy must be consistent with this Act and the general law.
Now the general law is what we're talking about all the time. The general law means the principles that, you know, if it doesn't reach, you know, if you put in a policy that said, okay, everybody's having a party must shut it down by 10 o'clock at night and you can't have alcohol there, right? Okay? That wouldn't be consistent with the general law. That would be inconsistent with the Act itself because it wouldn't be, you know, wouldn't be BYO or anything.
So we've got to always remember that the general law is extremely important. For example, I also had a look at the content Section 17 of the, what's it called, the Criminal Procedure Act, I think it's called, the content of a charge, right? Because there was also questions in here and people were saying that they went and they, you know, basically pulled him out without a warrant out of his home. And I think that this would be the area that you would be focusing on, right? Because if you're going to take somebody before the court under Section 17, the content of a charge, a charge must relate to a single offense, a charge that is worded in the alternative must be worded as such.
So basically you can't take people, you can't put one charge on them and then get them into court and say, oh, we're charging you with something else because, you know, they've got to, they've got to actually, you know, so people can prepare, you know, their defense. Where's my, oh, sorry, got that. Okay. So then we go down to subsection 4. So Section 17, subsection 4. A charge must contain sufficient particulars to fully and fairly inform the defendant of the substance of the offense that is alleged that the defendant committed, right? Now, you know, this is kind of a fishing expedition that they went on by the look of things to see if they could make a charge.
Now, I think that as far as I know, to get a warrant, to do that sort of thing, you'd need a warrant if you're going into someone's premises, right? You're going into someone's private house because he wasn't, he was using it as he lives there, right? And he was the one that they went in and got out. So subsection 5. Without, excuse me, limiting subsection 4, the particulars provided under the subsection must include a reference to the provision of an enactment creating the offense that it is alleged that the defendant has committed.
So they must have had a warrant that said, a warrant that said, we want to know if this is a place of resort. Could they have gone, yeah, but I think they'd need a warrant to go into a house to find that out. If it's a kind of like a public space, they wouldn't need a warrant. But if it's a private house and it was the occupier, what you say, is this reading from Yekla's Re-content of Charge or police website? I'm looking at the police, what's it called, Criminal Procedure Act.
Do you want me to bring it up, Liz? Just say if you want me to bring anything up. No, no, because I'm just generally thinking through, yeah, the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act and that police website about what is a place of resort is probably the important thing for people to think about. But generally, this thing about going into a place without a warrant, it's a bit of a fine line, you know, because it looks public.
But he's saying, because he lost his licence, it has to be his private place now that he holds parties to. And he was saying on the thing, look, I know about 90% of the people who've come, but, you know, I don't know the name of all the partners in that. So, yeah, it was a private party. And I don't think, even if they take it to the court, but what is behind them hassling the man is the more worrying thing.
Because what it's doing, of course, it's scaring the hell out of people. You're not going to get, I mean, it would probably have been better advertised as a party where we're going to discuss political, we're going to have a political discussion about that. This is the thing. You know, we need to be very, very clear that we are talking politics all of the time, right, because our freedom of political speech is specifically, specifically guarded, right. So that's exactly what they don't want us to do because that's the most damaging for them.
And I'm not talking political with forming parties political because you know what I mean, I'm about with parties. But, you know, the fact is it was a farewell Jacinda party. And, you know, why not say, you know, we're really glad she's gone and we're inviting everybody to get together and celebrate with us and we'll have speeches, right. We'll have speeches. I would say for your next one, Shane, make sure that the main point of your party is to hear speeches, light refreshments, okay, because you want to make sure that alcohol isn't the main thing, right.
Light refreshments are available. Ladies a plate, okay. Let's go back to how we used to organise politically. They can't do anything about it. They can't do anything about it. They are just using the sale of alcohol stuff to have a go at him. And, of course, they're also going to try and ruin his business by not letting him open up again. Be interesting to see what sort of, because it's usually not a fit and proper person that you get your license taken away for, okay.
And not a fit and proper person can mean that you've got criminal convictions, gang convictions, gang association, firearm convictions, because you've got to watch out for that. And although we can talk about firearms quite a lot, I think, under the, well, the Protestants can under the 1688. So that will segue us into what I'm really very, very interested in is the contention that there is a superior jurisdiction, a separate and superior jurisdiction in this country under this flag of 1835 called He Pua Pua.
There's other groups who go under that flag too, the Kingitanga, the Ratana Church, and other groups, a little more shady than those ones. But basically, they've all got the same idea. Because up until, well, I guess the core of the group have always had this idea that the Crown rightfully belonged to them because their descendants, blood descendants of the original, I think it was 52 chiefs, they signed that request to William IV back in 1835 and got a flag, right? Their idea is they signed the treaty, but they didn't cede sovereignty.
Now, it's like sitting on the bough of a tree, right, and sawing away at the side that's closest to the bowl of the tree. Do you know what I'm talking about? What happens when you saw the piece off that's attached to the tree? You come crashing down. Now, I talked about what our ancient constitution was in the last couple of videos. Well, not the last couple because the last one was on Wednesday, but that was part two of our unalienable rights that I did about two weeks ago.
Okay? They're both on the actual page, what do you call a page? Rumble, sorry. They're both on Rumble under WUNZ, right? So you're sitting on the branch of the tree and the tree is the jurisdiction that we are protected by, the law of the land. The problem is Te Ture Whenua Act, which gave some people the idea that that act applied to all of the land in New Zealand. It does not. It specifically pertains to what is known as Maori land and that can be held under corporations.
It can be held individually. It can be held as general land belonging to Maori. They have to bring themselves under that act by actually applying to the Maori Land Court. Now, the problem with saying, but, you know, we're a separate and superior jurisdiction and actually Te Ture Whenua Act takes all of the land of New Zealand, is that if you're basing that on the fact that you never ceded sovereignty, let's take that at face value, then you didn't get Article 3 of the Treaty, which granted citizenship and, of course, what went along with citizenship was the law of the land, was English common law.
So if you want to look at the Waitangi Tribunal constituted under the English common law, if you want to say that you are a different jurisdiction, then you better give all the settlement back because that was the wrong court to go to. That was the wrong tribunal to appear in front of because you either accept the law of this country or you say we'll have our own. That's fine, but you don't get the benefits of the English common law if you say we are a different jurisdiction.
So that's what I mean. You sit on your bow and you saw yourself off and you fall flat on your face. Now, I've talked a lot about what the benefits, of course, were of all of the what I call our ancient constitution, starting back in 1275 with the first statute of Westminster, which is actually the most important for us because that's the statute that says nobody is above the law. We will treat everybody the same. It establishes the rule of law.
So you can see why people who don't understand the rule of law might want to say or don't want to treat people differently or want to have more power than other people or want to unfairly and don't want to be bound by the English common law. You can see why they would say, well, you know, that doesn't apply to us. Now, I didn't have time to find the case, but in 2022 or 2021, there was a case against the Corrections Department.
One of the plaintiffs was a group calling themselves the Maori government. So the answer to the question was who were saying, and I'm pretty sure it's the Supreme Court because they took it all away, who were saying people who are in our jurisdiction have a distinct and superior jurisdiction to this law that we have been talking about. Now, the answer of the court was whomever is in the territorial, we're talking geography here, talking about the territory of New Zealand, the law of New Zealand, the laws of New Zealand apply to every person in that country, OK? So you can see why there's this big push for land because the more land you've got control over, you can then say, well, you know, and most of the South Island, a huge amount of the South Island has already been claimed by Ngāi Tahu.
Under a very shonky tribunal called the Waitangi Tribunal. They didn't have to have any written evidence. Those claims were no written evidence. They were stories told to historians. English land law requires that any transactions about land have to be written, OK? So going and they got a political solution, not just off labour, but Chris Finlayson was doing deals on his own. So what we saw with the settlements was not anything that had been before courts, OK? If you've got a dispute about a piece of land, someone sees on most of that driveway's mine, you get it surveyed and you find out, and you go and, you know, you can't agree, you end up in the court.
And the court will look at the written evidence, not somebody going along and saying, well, my brother had a title and I should, you know, I really should have this whole driveway to myself, even though, you know, I might have sold it. I, you know, I didn't really know what I was doing or it's not fair, yeah? That is not how it works. That is not the law of this country. Those Waitangi settlements are going to be looked at anyway.
But to actually go before courts and say to them, we ought to be treated differently because of our ancestry or we ought to be, or our gender or our whatever, whatever rubbish, people go before the courts and talk. And the courts should not be letting this happen. Thank God we know that there is a ruling and it's gone as far as it's going to go. Now, there's also talk about some recommendations from the Privy Council. Recommendations are like guidance, right? Recommendations are like advice.
The Privy Council can say what it wants, unless there's a court, unless there's a case before it. You know, and it's a logically reasoned decision. Now, just a little word about reason, too. All of, you know, my first concern, of course, is always employment law. And unjustified dismissal. The justification has got to come from a reasonable employer. Now, I think that people think that reasonable should be applied as a kind of a term of art. He's a good guy or he's a really reasonable person.
No. In actual fact, a reasonable employer, I would argue, is someone who can reason. Someone who looked at the order. Someone who knows something about the Health and Safety at Work Act. Or if they didn't, actually got a lawyer to find in the Health and Safety at Work Act if they were allowed to do these things. Especially after they had a Section 83 letter that says, no, you can't. That's reasoning. That's reasonable. So a reasoned decision always has to firstly comply with the law.
So what I was saying with Judge Holden, she didn't like very much having to agree with me. In fact, she chucked cold water on it. But she had to agree because it's what is in the law. This one about the place of resort is a bit hmm. But I would say, from looking at that, where they say all three conditions have to be met, that doesn't seem to appear as anything in the section itself, in Section 235.
So it must have come from case law. They must have had cases about place of resort before. And they've learned that the judges have said. See, common law, they say, is judge-made law. And that's a bit hard to understand. But what judge-made law means is they look at the law. They look at what the history of the factual situation. They look at what's called stare decisis, which means they follow the cases, unless those cases have been struck down or proven to be wrong, or they've got a different interpretation or whatever.
It's a way, basically, of interpreting the law with certain rules. Now, remember, we also got, under Section 5 of the Imperial Laws Application Act, we got the common law and the rules of equity thrown in for good measure. Well, not thrown in for good measure, of course. So we got the common law restated to us there. But what are our fundamental laws that sit under all of this? Things like the first statute of Westminster, a number of statutes under Edward.
Go and have a look at the Imperial Laws Application Act. Schedule one, and you'll have a lovely time going through the history of the common law, of English common law. And then, of course, the most important one for us is the 1688. Right? Now, in the 1688, we also find that you're not allowed, the king takes an oath on the Bible, not allowed to be taking it on anything else, that he would, and I've got friends in England who are starting to work on this, because apparently he was going to read passages from the Koran.
He's supposed to be supporting the Church of England, actually. He doesn't get the job. He takes the oath to support the Church of England, right, in England. We don't have it here, but I'm just talking about Charles. So I don't think Charles is going to get crowned if the people of England have got any sense, because there's so much treason. They've got sharia courts in England. They're not supposed to have sharia courts under their constitution. Can you tell us what those are, Liz? Sorry to interrupt.
Sharia courts are where they practice sharia law. For example, you can have more than one wife. You can divorce that wife by saying, I'll divorce you three times. They can beat their wives. Yeah, they can practice female genital mutilation, although that seems to be still against the general law in England. But they have their own idea about how land, sorry, property should be shared out. Women aren't at the whim of their men folk how the property will be shared out.
And the English are allowing that in their country. And that's where, you know, in terms of this sign up, that key allowed to us signing up to, when I say us, I mean the country, signing up to the rights of indigenous people. That's all about indigenous people with all sorts of different laws taking over. That's what it's about. So we've just rediscovered that we have got the most perfect gift of law. We can use it not just, and if you look at the last, Unalienable Rights Zoom I did, you will get a good idea of each section of that, each article I think it's called, of the 1688 Bill of Rights.
Okay, and we can hold not only, we can hold the police to account, we can hold the courts to account, we can hold ministries to account, we can hold the executive, which is the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Crown to account, we can hold the parliamentarians to account. The only thing we can't, thanks Jeff, the only thing that we cannot do about the politicians is what they say in the House of Representatives. And I don't think they can be arrested in the House of Representatives.
So that's against the law too. That's under the 1688, or maybe one of the earlier ones, because even before the great and what they call the Glorious Revolution of 1688, various political, the King would get people when they came to the Court of Parliament away from their lands and their bodyguards, he'd grab people, he'd have people arrested, etc. So, yeah, I think they, you know, this has been a very, very gradual thing. You didn't get everything all in one dose.
But I'll tell you what, and I think I mentioned it last time, that the Americans think they have a great thing with their constitution, and they do. But most of the amendments in that constitution freedom of religion was allowed. Freedom of religion under 1688 probably was, because that's what they basically had to escape England for, because they were, you know, it was a political thing to be a Catholic or to be a Protestant, depending, right? So their First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion is their own thing, right? We've got that now anyway in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
However, you know, the freedom to carry arms, that's taken from the fact that Protestants were, you know, you could definitely hold arms if you were Protestant. And it appears that it's completely guaranteed to them. And of course, you've got to remember, this is still the law of this country. I say that these days, Protestant just came from the fact that they were protesting against the arbitrary rule of someone from outside their country, the Pope in this case, right? And the rules that were being used, you know, by the state itself against people who weren't of, who were of the Protestant religion, but because it was the Protestants, if you like, not Protestants so much, but, you know, it was the non-conformists mostly who were in the New Model Army and who won the war against the king.
So basically a Protestant just means to have an idea that is perhaps not in line with who the ruling force is. So I would say that we should argue for our right to bear arms under that Protestant label, that we're all protesting about the fact that we can't and we need to defend ourselves against the state, which is exactly what the 1688 right to bear arms was to make sure that whoever was in power, you know, the Protestants in that case had the right.
But we can, I think we can enlarge that word Protestant. Yeah. Thanks, Geoff, for putting it. That's the last one that was on. Okay. So these are Unalienable Rights Part 1. That was mostly, I introduced the fact that we did have a constitution in that one and we talked a lot about Kelvin's, Kelvin and Harness case and, you know, the idea of, you know, this capricious use of, you know, the power of the state to try and arrest people or arrested people when they hadn't broken the law.
Right. And this is what lies behind the fact that the police had to do a bit of a dance around this, you know, what was happening with, down at the Shooter's Saloon. Doesn't sound like a good name, does it? But, yeah, they had to because you're not supposed to be going out arresting people for nothing. Right. And, you know, and the most extreme thing, of course, is using the power of the state and arming thugs or, you know, putting them in uniforms with stab vests and God knows what.
And, you know, them hurting innocent citizens who are only trying to maintain their rights and maintain their freedom. So, yeah, I really want to see the lawyers who argue all of these cases because there will be thousands of them in the next few years. You know, really pick up, really pick up the 1688 and go for it because you don't need to wait for a judicial review. I mean, there could be all sorts of good things coming out of the fact that they went and mob handed to the Shooter's Saloon.
But people have got to know and not rely on, oh, there'll be some lawyers who pick it up and then the lawyers who pick it up don't even tell you what the hell their arguments are. Right? A lot of the people who were involved in those judicial reviews, the workers, they didn't know what the arguments the lawyers were putting together. Didn't know. Mostly, I develop my arguments while I'm talking to you guys on the Zoom. So there's no secrets about what's going on.
Got to tell you about a little meeting I had today. Okay. These representatives of a very big company in this country were trying to because we've got an unjustified dismissal coming up. We were meeting to discuss what were going to be the parts of the law that was going to be argued. Right? So anyway, I decided after we found the case of Lee and Otamatia High School, it was a little gem because it says, it shows you how you get the argument about Section 92 or, for that matter, pretty much any of the non-consultation parts of the Health and Safety at Work Act into an argument before the authority.
The authority doesn't know anything about the Health and Safety at Work Act. It's shocking. It's really shocking. But they're ably supported by certain lawyers who are absolutely terrified now. So I had a bit of a set-to with this lawyer who's known, apparently, as a bit of a hard nut. But anyway, she was saying to me, well, her colleague was saying to me during the week that the colleague wasn't even talking on the Zoom. So you've got your solicitor and your barrister.
So the solicitor had been writing me back and forth and saying, we don't believe that you can argue coercion in the authority. Mr so-and-so will have to go to the district court to argue it. So I was saying to them, no, no, you've got it wrong. Anyway, in the end, I told them, look, this is this case. Look at it. They still turned up today going on about, well, it's only if Mr so-and-so is a health and safety work rep or anything like that.
I said, no, no, no, you've got to read it a little bit further. Now, the lovely thing is, of course, that one of the people, well, it's used in a number of places, but in particular, the very last subsection of section 89, you can raise all these matters if you've raised section 83. Because remember, that's the piece of the Health and Safety at Work Act that says if you come across a hazard, you can withdraw your labour until it's fixed.
Where we started right at the beginning. But I believe that the law firms are getting pretty desperate now because they were the ones who gave the advice that everything was going to be OK. They had the unions in their pocket, so they didn't fear them at all. So under section 84, the unions can do, well, it's not so much the unions, it's called a work group. So any group of workers that form themselves into a health and safety committee can use the Health and Safety at Work Act.
So, I mean, what she was saying today, but she was saying, no, no, it's going to cause time and it's going to take too long and it's too much and you can't have that. And I said, well, we're having it. And she said, oh, you know, he has to be a member. And I said, no, he doesn't. He can take it as a single person. Of course he can. But I said, you know, I said it's very important that we take it.
Because she was trying to make out to the member that, you know, it's just because we wanted to get an extra remedy, you know, money-wise. I said, no, it's very important we take it because the Otamatia one, even though the authority member explained how it works, it was found that she wasn't coerced into anything, right? It just was on the facts it didn't work. I said, but it's clearly coercion. And he did raise the Section 83.
So we're going to have it. Anyway, I don't think the member was too pleased either because she said, oh, well, you'll need to amend your amendment again, Ms. Lambert, and you'll have to put in the, you know, the reasoning that you have for, and the factual, you know, what were the facts of the matter that, you know, he's, that we can put this in. But, yeah, I mean, I think she knew I'm absolutely determined. It's going to go in.
But, you see, the thing is why the firms are so afraid is because they've given the wrong advice to their clients who've paid them a lot of money. And now we are going to win these, we are going to win these points. And remember coercion is the one that Erica is always also arguing, right? And she's arguing in a district court because she wasn't an employee of her club, for example. Right. Now, an employee of a club would argue it in the Employment Authority if they were being pushed to, sorry, yeah, the Employment Relations Authority if they were being pushed to get a jab and they didn't want to.
Actually, that was the, what's it called, the Haworth one, Haworth and Wangamata. He was an employee. So that's where I went through to the authority. But he wasn't arguing a health and safety matter. He was just arguing process under the Employment Relations Act, which, you know, a lot of employment lawyers are now doing. Although at the beginning you probably couldn't get anybody because they didn't think there was enough money in it because the process was really tight, right? And most employers did it right.
So process arguments, you know, they're a bit of a waste. Well, you put them in, and especially now Harwood's been decided because there was a process point there that was very important, but it's quite particular to that case. But, yeah, nobody has had the guts to say, well, in actual fact it was the COVID-19 was a hazard and it, and I'm going to let Erica have a talk in a minute, the COVID-19 was a hazard and it's a hazard under the Health and Safety at Work Act and needs to be checked out by your boss because under Section 103.1J, 1 and 2, you can, that is your entrance as an individual into the Employment Relations Act, oh, sorry, into the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Okay, Erica, tell us what's going on. Erica, you've got your hand up. Hello. Is there sound? Yes, there is. I, oh, thanks for letting me on. Today I found a US case lodged against the Freedom of Information Act, which I thought is plagiarism worthy for our Information Act requests. As you know, I've lodged quite a few Official Information Act requests. What's in the ingredients of a certain product that's been imported? Does the Attorney General justify limiting the Bill of Rights based on an infection fatality rate of less than 1% for a certain disease? The latest one I did was on the censorship of the Facebook takedown portal.
So I'll just share this Official Information Act. Actually, in the US it's called FOIA, which is Freedom of Information Act. And that all started with, I think, Mr. Obama, which really did shake up a lot of the drug companies back in, gosh, when did he come in? 2000 or something? 2012, I think. 2020, wasn't it? Okay. No, no, it wasn't. I think it was a bit earlier. So when this Freedom of Information Act came out, all the doctors in the US who had been writing out prescriptions to their favourite sponsor in exchange for benefits, all had to stop doing this because now you were able to do a Freedom of Information Act request and say, okay, how much have you been paying for people to prescribe, I don't know, Zoloft or whatever the latest and greatest drug is.
So this case is in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. The complaint is Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. And they're bringing in action against the defendant, the US Department of Health and Human Services, to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, number five, FOIA. I'll go down a bit. Actually, I had downloaded it. Oh, there it is. That's fantastic, Erica. The Freedom of Information Act venue is correct. The Plaintiff Judicial Watch is a non-profit education organisation.
They're also in Washington, D.C., where the Department of Health is. And on 30 August 2021, the plaintiff sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, via its online Freedom of Information Act submission system. And they wanted all emails sent to and from members of the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee regarding adverse events, deaths, or injuries by investigatory vaccines for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and or COVID-19 currently produced by Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and or Johnson & Johnson.
So basically, they didn't answer the Freedom of Information Act request. So now they're going to the District of Columbia Court, which I think is quite a good sign. The date of this is filed 3 September 2022. So New Zealand has the Official Information Act request. And I also did a request for all the emails between a Mrs. Helen Patousis Harris. Anyone know who she is? Yeah, we all know who she is. Yeah, the doctor. All emails.
What is she? She's not a minister of anything, is she? No, she's not a minister. She's just a marketing person for the International Vaccine Advisory. I forget how many committees she's on. She's the Wicked Witch of the West when it comes to medicine. One of the Witchettes, I'd say. We've got the Super Duper Witch. The Ministry of Health and the Prime Minister's Office said, no, we haven't emailed here at all. And actually, did they say that or did they say? Actually, yeah, no, they did deny it.
And then they said, oh, your request is too broad. We can't possibly incorporate all those emails. And I said, well, you just go into Outlook, File, Export, put in the name, and the string, and away you go. Uncle. So they didn't ask for it. So the Official Information Act request says that you, this is 32B, write a review. So you're supposed to go through the Ombudsman first. The Ombudsman Office seems to be completely overloaded. I can't even get a list of my Information Act requests that I'm waiting on.
When you do a complaint, you don't get any number to know what the reference is or anything. I think there are numbers on the, what's it called? The Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Not that FYI one. It's an actual part of the, and I think there was a team, and if you go to the website of that office, there was a COVID-19 reporting. I think it had numbers. Well, I've made probably about a dozen OIAs that have just not been answered in any capacity.
And the Official Information Act says that on application, the High Court, you can take it to the High Court, and this is the best part, order that the costs of the applicant on the solicitor and client basis shall be paid by the Crown. So I think that's even better. Oh, nice, nice, nice, nice. That's great, that's great. You risk making a complaint to the High Court and costs shall be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
That's how I read it. Nice. That's very good. Now, here's the thing. You remember that guy in Hamilton, what's his name, and he got chucked out because Jacinda said, we don't like you, go away. He's a Labour Party MP, but he's a doctor. Oh, Galrave. Now, wasn't it him who said, Dr Sharma, that's right, thanks, Luke. Wasn't it him who said that they were being coached on how to resist, how to avoid Official Information Act requests? He might be a guy to get on side, eh? Hey, listen, guys, you know this is going to be put up on Rumble, so I'd say, you know, start working.
Don't just sit there watching every day, every week and every Wednesday and Friday. Share them around to people that you think can help with these projects that we've got going and let's get some teams together to work on this stuff. We can't do everything ourselves, okay? And, you know, I know there's a lot of people who think, oh, well, you know, I come and I watch and I get information for something I can do myself, but this is more or less to do it for the whole country, right? These are what we need to do.
These things we need to do to support our freedom for all of us, because as long as some of us are not free, we're not free at all, okay? We've got to have freedom for the whole damn lot. And it doesn't matter, you know, what political party or, you know, religion or colour or race or whatever. You know, everybody, we've got to have them all free, right, equally free. Yeah, that's a great idea. So are you thinking then that you'd take the complaint about the fact that you haven't got – so you'd have a number of things, wouldn't you? Yeah, I'm trying to – That the scope of your questions is easily, you know, that they're replying to you, that, you know, your questions are too large a scope, but you've shown them exactly how to do it, that a lot haven't been answered at all, and that – but that one about – I mean, the worst one is the most recent one about the censorship, and I said, please share your censorship settings on Facebook, and they said that they won't because it's going to prejudice any overseas organisation, international organisation.
So that says they're not acting in the interests of – Who's running it? So what you can do is then, because the government – I guess that the person who would be then pulled on board would be the Governor-General, right, because it's through her that the power of the Crown is actually operated in the country. She's the one who signs off acts of Parliament. She's the one who opens Parliament, who closes Parliament, who appoints the Police Commissioner, who appoints the High Court judges.
You know, she has them all put to her, but it's got to be her signature on the lot. So I think that the person who needs to be pulled in as complained against is defendants, if you like, is Cindy Kero as the first bit, not the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General can be in there, but I think Cindy Kero, in terms of – because you know how you do your intitulation page? You'll sometimes see the 1688 on the intitulation page.
Yeah, we need to have that on there, definitely, because it's just becoming a joke. You know, you can't even find out the contract for Pfizer. You can't find out the ingredients. They just won't admit to anything. And there's this Official Information Act 1982 says that you can take it to the High Court. So I'm happy to spend $200. That's probably, what, 10 trips to the cinema buying popcorn? Maybe actually less than that. No, I think you've got an account for your tennis one, haven't you, Erica? An account? Yeah, didn't you ask people to put some money into an account for the tennis one? Oh, yes, that was a few months ago.
No, it's not there. No, I'm just saying, like, it'll be – Well, then it brings people – It'll be entertainment. I'd rather pay a $200 filing fee than go down to my local Hoyt Cinema and watch 10 movies and buy a tub of popcorn. Did you get 10 movies for $200? I'm not sure you were. No, I don't think you do anymore. I'm probably aging myself. Yeah, you probably just have to go to the matinees or something.
Matinees, yeah. No, and I think there's actually probably quite a few people. I mean, Cam Slater's one. Well, they seem to answer journalist ones, but he hasn't – I don't know if he's asked anything tricky, but there's a few people. AES, I don't know who that is, but they ask a lot of questions. Okay. There's a man called Chuck Schooner. So maybe it's worth getting – Yeah, well, this is what I mean, guys. Even if it's only – share this to pull these people in to support Erica in terms of their complaints as well.
More evidence. You've got more witnesses. Oh, I'll tell you what's lovely fun though, Erica. Oh, well, you saw it. You saw it when we had the strikeout application to the tribunal, right? Their witnesses, you can – if it's a jury trial, right? Well, hang on. Will it be – I don't know if it'll be that way. But, you know, you can – well, two things. Do clearly research on Potassi Harris and Cindy Kero, et cetera, et cetera, because then you can ask them questions that basically paint them into a corner.
When we did the strikeout application, which is another one that's, you know, going to be, you know, what do they call it, reserved decision. So she couldn't make a decision on the day. And they have a panel of people. It's a bit like a jury. So I did the old, you know, let's have a look at who these people are. Well, they had never experienced anything like that. So, Erika, what do you reckon? Did you see them? Or were you in and out of that soon? Erika, you got your – you're muted.
But anyway, it's all – Go on. I did see a bit of squirming on that tribunal. And then there was sort of a lot of blank faces, kind of computer does not register faces. What is this command that's been thrown at me? You know, I've just been doing what I want for the longest time. How can – like, what's going on? Kind of stuck. Sort of like those video games that have the background people that just move about two steps and then move back.
You know, they're just kind of stuck in game mode. They're like, oh, what's going on here? Something's challenging my usual steps and usual process because it's obviously a very closed circle. And it was very interesting how you challenged the conflict of interest from this closed circle and said you've all got a conflict of interest. And they said, OK, we'll go away and deliberate for 15 minutes. About 15 minutes. Is that how long it takes to make an espresso? How did they know it was going to take 15 minutes? And then they come back and go, oh, well, we've decided that we're the suitable panels.
I've said to Kelvin, I've said, look, you're going to have a jury trial. Get used to actually, you know, pulling them all up and doing research on them and putting it to them. You're not suitable. You're not suitable. You're not suitable. You're not suitable. New Zealand's got a piece of cake because we're all of that lot. They're all connected. And like one of the guys who was on the tribunal, he was described as a layperson. So a very quick search found out that actually he was what's known as a, he's not a doctor.
So I suppose they could say he's a layperson in that sense. He's not a nurse. But he's kind of a professional tribunal member because they all get what's called an independent member of that tribunal. So that means he sees a lot of them. So it's not just some guy off the street, which you would think a layperson would be. And not only that, but he had links. He'd written papers. He's an accountant from the UK. Was he from the States, I think, originally? He didn't say anything, so I wouldn't know.
They all sat there like stuffed dummies. Oh, from the utilities website, an independent member of that. Yeah. He'd written papers for ResearchGate. What is ResearchGate? It's kind of like, they're not professionals. And so ResearchGate is a kind of a, you know, well, you're getting there. And, you know, these are the papers that they've written. And that's kind of building their CV. So he'd written a whole lot of papers advising Treasury and talking about government policy, etc., etc.
So he was linked to the government. Well, he's linked to the Treasury in some ways, you know, because he would have had been working with them a lot, right? Now, a lot of this stuff is money. It's money about what's going on with our Treasury, for a start, you know, where's all the money going? Also to ACC. I think he had written papers about ACC and God knows what. So I call it the private-public link. But, yeah, so objected to him, objected to this other nurse.
He was a nursing manager of a company that had actually set up all of the, look, it is the Reapers report out of 2020. And the nurses from this company had set up the community testing facilities. Now, of course, then I remembered that when I saw that, I remembered that Erica had done a great OIA about how much they were getting paid. And was able to say to them, for each test they got paid $120, right? So, okay, he's not the person who's getting the $120, but his company, this nursing company, is making a lot of money.
And it was absolutely in their interest to try and make sure that the rollout went smoothly. Yeah, like the jab. I mean, imagine the amount of money that must have been paid out. How many people got tested through all of those bloody tests that they had stuck up? Oh, millions. That's right, they just go and get Treasury to write a checklist. So, if you have a million people tested at $120 each, how much is that? Yeah, I shudder to think.
And these are the things they were torturing babies with in the hospital. These were the things they were trying to shove up babies' noses and wouldn't do the operations in. I don't want to go there because I get so angry and upset with them. You know, there's one thing to be corrupt, but there's another thing to be cruel and heartless and corrupt. Yeah. Real bad people. Anyway, guys, I'm finished for tonight. Jeff wanted to have a word.
Yeah, there were two things. First of all, I missed the bit about Section 235. What Act is that, Liz? It's under the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act 2012, I believe. Okay. Now, do you all know that discrimination exists under the Official Information Act? Discrimination? How does that exist? Well, I sent an Official Information Act request to the cops for some information, and they wrote back saying we are not prepared to give it under the Official Information Act Section whatever.
But Professor Andrew Geddes, the professor at the Woke University of Otago, he sent the same request, and he got it back within two months, no problem. And I took a punt and called him and said, how come you get this so quick and I can't get it? Oh, well, it might be because I'm a law professor. So that tells you a lot, doesn't it? Yeah, and remember, what's the first statute of Westminster say? We will not.
I think it says something like we are no respecter of persons. All right, so I'm coming to that. Now, going back to... Erica, if she's going to go to the High Court, if she's going to represent herself, why does she have to pay the fireman fee? Because when I appealed the traffic ticket from the Kaikohe District Court, filled out the filing form and said I was representing myself, there was no filing form. So with Erica's ability, I would think it would be a breeze for her to go and do it herself and save the filing fee.
She did it herself, but she wasn't advised that... Yeah, because you can... I think you have to... Most times you have to apply for a waiver, though, Geoff. Yeah, which is what I did. Okay, so she just didn't apply for it last time, but she needs to. Well, anyway, there you go, Erica. You've saved me $200 already, Erica. What? I say you've saved Erica $200 already. Yeah, she can send it to me instead of going to the movers.
The other thing, that 1688 that you talked about, Liz, I can see that being a real little goldmine. Because if we're all equal before the law, then theoretically we should all be able to get legal aid, no matter what it's for, not just for defence. Because when I applied for it, they said, oh, well, we don't normally give it for an offence under six months in jail. So that's discrimination and not being treated equally before the law.
So that's another thing. And then these characters in the universities, all these law professors and whatnot, they should be helping us out as well, presumably, because we've paid their wages anyway. Yes, you're so right. You're so right. The ones who are teaching, they should be. They should be available to do a bit of work for the public. They don't even reply to emails. Ged has never replied to my emails. This other woman doesn't. So that's something else maybe we should go after.
And this get more people doing stuff, you know, we do. We need more Dewey and less Huey. All this Huey here is great. We're Hueying a lot, aren't we? Exactly. Some of us are doing it a bit as well. The vast majority of them, they just sit there and watch. I hope you're listening, folks. Time you got off your back and did something. And now this thing's come up with Shane and his bar. It gives all kinds of opportunities for these personal injury claims.
True. Get off your backsides, folks, and get involved. You've got the weapons. If you're not going to use them, go away. Right. That's me. They will use them. They will. No, that's the way. A rally to action. Thank you, Geoff. Okay. So anybody else wanted to comment or put something into the pot? Or forever hold your peace. Any good movies? Because it's Friday night. We'll just have a – anybody got a good movie? The Man in the High Castle on Netflix.
High Castle. And you can watch it free on F Movies. Yeah. Wow. And I watched The Bank of Dave, and yes, it was great. Oh, that's great. That was a great movie. Another new one I found today is Devil's Series 2. All about high finance and banking. My favourite subject. So that you can watch on FM, free movies. There's all kinds of good stuff. What was that Devil's? Devil's Series 2. Okay. Series 1 was quite good, and this is a follow-up to it.
It's all about corrupt bankers. Cool. No, can't be. Can't be such a thing. Oh, well, yes. Yeah, we won't get into banking too much, because of course we want to keep our accounts open, guys. Yeah, no, they're all beautiful people. Yeah, fantastic. It was interesting when the internet went down in the far north, and everybody could only use cash. That was a thing. Oh, wow. Tell us about that, Geoff. Well, our internet went down on Wednesday.
It was gone in the morning. There was nothing. So the gas pumps weren't working. You couldn't use your credit card, anything else in the countdown. They had a sign outside, cash only. No. The ATMs weren't working. The phones weren't working. Everything was down. The phones, the mobile phones, the internet. It really, really showed what can happen in a case like that. And that was only the far north. It was just the last frontier. You know, we're the last frontier up here.
But everywhere else was working. And I brought some folks in when I did that. No, it wasn't. Another job. And there were folks in Kawakawa and around there, just south of us. They've got no power and no water still. So there you go. Yeah, well, apparently Lynn sent something out before. Was it Lynn sent it? Oh, no. Somebody else sent that. There were 4,900 people that were uncompactable down in Hawke's Bay there. 900 have piped up and said, we're OK.
So I think it's mostly to do, I can't imagine that the farmers down in Hawke's Bay have, you know, all been destroyed or anything horrible like that. I think they're just, you know, their communications have gone out and, you know, you fall off the edge of the world. What I did find interesting was Chitkin's now announcing that New Zealand is formally requesting help for the cyclone. It's a pity that you sent that 40 million to the Ukraine.
That could have been put to work. Right, so where are we supposed to be requesting it from? Australia, among other places. There was an article, I think it was on the Epoch Times Australia this morning. They've got enough to do with their own money. We want it back off Ukraine. We want the 3 million back off the Taliban. We want the 5 or 10 million back off Hillary Clinton. Yeah. That'll do. And also the climate change gang as well.
And the hard crap. And all of the billions that went to Pfizer, we'll have that as well. It doesn't exist. We need to get some insurance claims going, Liz. That's what we need to get some money back. Yep. It really is. Anyway, I've got to mute now. Okay, guys. Wonderful. I might take down a few of those things. And I saw also that Rhonda talked about a showing about HAARP, H-A-A-R-P, and Turkey that reports. I saw something during the week.
The people in the – where was she from? I can't remember. Romania. A Romanian woman saying – I think she was a member of parliament or something. Yeah, a senator. Yeah, a senator. Saying it wasn't a normal earthquake. It didn't have an epicenter. Yeah. And there was about a handful of events that led up to that where they were – the other countries were shutting off oil and gas pipelines and pulling their diplomats out. And, yeah, net minute, got huge earthquakes.
Amazingly. I mean, they're just – you know, it just blows your mind. I guess that's why they say, oh, must be a conspiracy. They just haven't got – The Romanian senator, that clip she made has gone absolutely ballistic. Yeah. She's on counter-spin today. Yeah, really great interview too. She's such an amazing lady. Yep. So today I'm going to have a look. I was in a Zoom with someone based in Wellington and saw the quake. Oh. Now.
Yeah. The turkey one. Oh, there's the video. Somebody put that up. Here's the link to the video of the whole event that happened at Shooter's Saloon. That's in the thing if people want to have a look at that. Yep. Plenty of, you know, plenty of weapons there though, guys. It's a bit harder than going out and demonstrating, but you can do both, of course. You can do both. It's still summer. Still time for – You know, there's a Rolling Stones song, and I'm not even sure it was written by them, about fighting in the streets and about – and I'd never really looked at the words before, but it was about – it's in the 70s, of course, at the time of the Vietnam War, and they're kind of bemoaning the fact that they live in slow, old London town, and nobody gets out on the streets.
Yeah, so I'd forgotten. I knew the song, but I didn't know what the words were. It's worth a look, guys. Worth a look. Yep. Awesome. Okay, guys. Better say goodnight. Lots of homework for people to do, or there'll be a test on Wednesday. No, they definitely won't. Hang on. I work at Shooters on the weekend. Have done since not long after Wellington last year. Have watched the cops harass Shane when he had his licence and when he lost it.
Can you – so what was the grounds of losing the licence, do you know, PBNZ? Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, hi. Okay. Hi. Karina here. Yeah, so pretty much Shane lost his licence due to a default payment that happened. So it was nothing cynical. He wasn't giving underage kids alcohol. He wasn't done for any kind of abuse. He wasn't giving underage kids alcohol. He wasn't done for any kind of unlawful thing that he was arrested for and now has criminal charges.
Nothing like that. It was due to something that basically the council tripped him up on. That was two years – it happened two years before this actually even came about. And they waived it, and then all of a sudden, I think, once this kind of Wellington happened, they thought, you know what? We're going to bring it back up, and we're going to target him. So I helped Shane at the bar most weekends. I've kind of had to stop a little bit at the moment just due to personal reasons.
But I have watched – hang on. Can I just quickly tell my daughter to shush? Hang on. We can't hear her, by the way. Oh, well, I can. It's annoying. Sorry. She's trying to focus. Yeah, I'm trying to focus. Is she getting into the cupboard as well? Oh, she's making a bowl. I don't even know how to explain it. It's a little pill-y thing. Anyway. Yeah, so basically, I've seen the police come and try to intimidate him when he had his licence to try and kind of see if he was doing anything wrong.
I basically filmed almost every interaction that the police have had with him prior to today. Oh, yesterday. Sorry. So all the footage that was taken yesterday was just me live streaming on my alternative media page that I run. Wow, well done. So then you did the filming? Yeah, I filmed it. I have not been impressed with the way that they have targeted him. Shane's a good friend. He's not just somebody I help out. I genuinely see him as a really good friend, and he has not done anything to deserve this.
And he's really struggled through the mandates and the whole passes and all that. That place has been a safe haven for a lot of people. It has been the place that we have been able to go and just be us and chill with people that understand where we're at, what's happening, how we're feeling, and just know that we have built a community. They could have come yesterday. They could have come on any other weekend where he has private functions that aren't freedom parties.
They could have come and they knew that if they were to come on the day where he had people like us, that there could have been more of a pushback where maybe they could arrest people. And I'm really proud of the fact that... Yes, they don't give them any chances. Yeah, and I'm very proud of the fact that, yes, there are a few times that people got heated. And I myself, I got a very potty mouth that night.
I just was so triggered after Wellington to see faces from Wellington as well of those cops. And so it was definitely a learning process to bite our tongues and maybe not as serious as people were. But, you know, nobody got arrested. They couldn't do anything, could they? All they looked like was absolute fools. And they did. And that live has been watched over 10,000 times now. So, you know, people can see exactly what they... What about his license? Who defended him in that license hearing? So I'm not entirely sure.
I know that he did apply and they mucked him around. It was like weeks turned into, you know, a month and then a month turned into... And they just kind of kept pushing him out and prolonging the process. There's a lot of... I mean, I think it's going to get back one day. And the thing is that this is what... If people, you know, if there's some lawyers out there, are there any freedom lawyers out there? You know, get an appeal of them taking his license.
Yeah. And you've got some great... You know, it's all filmed what they were there, what they were doing. It's good evidence. They had absolutely no reason to be doing that. Yeah. No, exactly. And I think, yeah, he has... He, at one point, was kind of wanting to see if he could get it back. And then he thought, you know what? I don't want to have to deal with the police having every jurisdiction to be able to come in because I, you know, am under having a liquor license and the things that you have to do when you have that.
If he wants to have it as an actual place where he can... Yeah, so that's what he's done. He has people that actually live in the residence. It's like a hostel. He lives on the property. And it's also a private area that he only opens to people that have booked and paid and have catered food. He will not allow people to come if they have not catered food for themselves. He's done everything the way that you responsibly would.
Rhonda's saying could someone else hold the license? Well, he has. He's also looked at doing something like that as well. But, again, he then is having to allow them to come onto his property. And he's gone the route of doing it affidavit, doing all those things, you know, the treasure trust on the gate where it clearly states that nobody is allowed onto the property if he's not okayed and stuff. So I think he's really kind of had bricks off his shoulders by not having his liquor license.
Yeah, that's right. They were really clutching at straws. And it just shows you they're scared of losing their everything. He's not selling alcohol. He's not providing alcohol. He hit the kitchen space downstairs where, like, the bar area is. Everything that's in the bar is soft drinks. He sells soft drinks. I ended up becoming a bar person, and then I ended up becoming a soft drink person. Like, it was stink for us because our job became really boring.
Yeah, well, I don't know. Yeah, you could make ice cream sundaes or something like that. No, I mean, the fact is that people can have a real good time without alcohol anyway. But I'm not saying that people, you know, shouldn't be allowed to have alcohol. It's quite, actually, you can have some good times without it. But you shouldn't be forced into that. Absolutely. And that's the point that was made last night, is that we don't need alcohol to continue celebrating what we came here to do.
To be with the people that we are with, that is enough of an elevator for us. But also, when they took the alcohol, they were taking alcohol from his personal, what he drinks. Not what they think he's giving or anything. That thing about, when I was reading the section of the Act, supplied a person, so that thing about the consumption of alcohol. If it's supplied by any person, by any person on premises on which the person resides, whether the person is the occupier or not.
So anybody residing on there, they couldn't be charged with drinking their own alcohol and being charged under, I think it's 236. I think it's the next one. I haven't had a good look at that. But yeah, there's so many ways to actually, not just defend yourself, but to make sure you're going to get some financial relief. And the thing that worries a lot of people that watch what happened was that they were not marking down whose alcohol was whose.
To say, okay, this is what Shane had. This is his stuff that we've put in this part of the paddy wagon where they had started stashing the stuff. They just mixed everybody's and anybody's. So they could then say, all of this alcohol was at Shane's premise. Why did he need this much alcohol? There's absolutely no way of saying who's whose, what's what. Under B, under subsection 235 or whatever it is, 1B, or is it 2B? So it does not apply to the consumption of alcohol supplied by any person by way of a gift to any person who resides on the premises.
I mean, technically, people could have all brought along to put it as a gift to say thanks to him for putting on the show. And the thing is, is that when his liquor license was taken off, what did he do with all the liquor he had there that he was selling? He put it out in the storage behind. That's what they've taken. They've taken all his storage things. So, of course, it's quite a bit of boxes, cases of wine bottles.
And so, you know, they're very likely to say that, you know, all this alcohol was there. Has he got a good record? They have to provide a record for him. Yeah, well, he's had his bar for 15 years and he has not had issues. A bar, maybe a couple of noise complaints. You know, he's not had any issues with his liquor license up until now. It's not in a really residential area, is it? No, no, it's not.
Exactly. And last weekend, for the first time in years, he had somebody from the Auckland City Council show up at about 11. Absolutely, like wanker of a guy, because I was there and I filmed. And he just tried to intimidate and served him with a piece of paper, shamed and touched it, didn't accept it. So he put it on the floor and he sat in his car and basically waited and waited and waited. And then a cop arrived and a couple of cops arrived and they tried to get him on noise complaint.
And he's got a party upstairs. He's got a party, two parties downstairs, two Shenz nights. These are Islanders. They laugh so loud. And we had turned the music right down. And of course, it's still loud. And so they just tried anything. And they have done this so many times where they have literally just pulled at anything possible to get something more on his record. The Auckland Council's going to have more to worry about than that. And they've said that they'll take him to environmental court, which we both absolutely cracked up at.
We just burst into laughter. Yeah, well, the environmental court, they're probably the most dangerous of the lot because, you know, they're the ones basically who want to see us all off the earth. But anyway, guys, I better. Yeah, thank you. Anyway, lots of videos up on TVNZ media, on Facebook, Telegram and other platforms. TVNZ, thank you. And, you know, we're kind of keen to have people reporting on these cases in the authority and eventually in the court.
OK, the employment law stuff. Right. So often you don't have to turn up at the court, but that's even better. Or you don't have to turn up at the authority. You can get video links if you're further away. We can't get there for some reason. So, you know, if you want to do some reporting on what we're doing in the open, because they're all open. Yep. OK. Because people think the courts are broken, but in actual fact, there's a lot of good stuff happening, eh, Liz? Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Don't be afraid to get into the courts and watch what's going on and listen and learn. You learn a hell of a lot. Yep. You learn. Some people's lives are pretty awful, too. Yep. I've sat in court quite a few times. I used to work as a mental health worker. So I've sat with a lot of people in court, you know, trying to get themselves out of pretty shitty situations. Yeah. So I know how shitty it can be and how some people just have a bit of grace some days.
Did you ever go to the family court with any of them? Yes. OK. So in terms of why I ask is, of course, because of what happened with Pamela Taylor, right? Now, she got out, and I think it was down to social media. Yep. Because the doctor, and I think it was mostly to do with the doctor, got exposed as some kind of super freak, right? Yep. And she was out on the Monday. Well, you know that she was in on Friday.
That's Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, four days. I don't think it was even that. I think it would have been, she probably wouldn't have been out till Thursday. They got freaked. And that's why they let her go. But I'm more interested, now I'm interested, in who was the judge and what's his background, what's going on? Because that was a political incarceration. Oh, for sure. Yep. For sure. Now, do you know Dostoevsky? You've heard of the Gulag Archipelago? I don't remember.
That was a Soviet, what happened in Soviet Russia. They sent millions to these re-education camps. Called them mentally ill. Called them, they need to be re-educated, right? They have the same sort of stuff going on in China. Their favourite drug is Clozapine, which is an antipsychotic. Okay, it doesn't kill you, but it makes people have delusions and hallucinations. I'm not, I wouldn't be surprised if they put a little bit of it in the jabs, actually. The way that people are, still walking around with masks on and acting crazy.
They're just ready to tip again as soon as they say the word, really. They've got them really in some sort of stupor. So, yeah. So, it was a great victory, I believe, that she got out. But if she will help, it needs to be carried further, because that judge needs to be exposed as well. Yeah. And the power of social media, I think, is also probably going to play well in Shane's hand, because it's really showing people exactly how ridiculous, you know, we're in a civil emergency, and we have, you know, 15 to 20, I would say 20 to 25, to be honest, from what I saw.
And how can they pull that many resources of, you know, police to one space for a good at least two and a half hours is beyond me. And they didn't hassle any of the customers at all? So, we weren't allowed to leave. Nobody could come in. Yeah, yeah. We weren't allowed to go to the bathroom at one point. We were literally stuck in where we were. They were, yeah, they had us all pretty much rounded up.
They had secluded Shane out by the front entrance, and they had him circled. Nobody could get close enough to even give him the ability to be recorded voice, so we could have, you know, what was happening for his voice. And, you know, hands-on tasers, just line-ups, just like Wellington. Yeah, it was gross. It was really gross. And it was very triggering, because, you know, a year on. What he says, you know, what Jeff is saying is that they have insurance for personal injury for people they hassle that, you know, can get it, can make claims against them that they've, you know, caused a personal injury in terms of fear.
Yeah, and they've taken not just alcohol, but they've taken the koha box that we have that, you know, if people want to put some money in, they can. And there was $125 there that would have gone straight to the DJ to just say, you know, thanks for coming and, you know, playing awesome music. And they took that, and it was like, wow, you know, $125. What? Yeah. Just, yeah. It was just sick. Really sick, really sad.
I was thinking about that and the alcohol. And, I mean, maybe it could be worth Shane or someone gathering statements from all the people there as to what they took and the money and all of that stuff. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, even if it's just affidavits or whatever, I reckon that'd be worth doing. Yeah. So, I recorded Shane standing by the cop who was counting the money because he was like, look, you need to let me know exactly how much was in there because I want the exact amount back when you return it, if they return it.
And, yeah, so, but you're right, for the alcohol that was taken, we have no idea whose was whose. They didn't take any record of it. Conveniently. Yeah. They'll have to record it if they're going to take it to the court. Yeah. Well, and it's going to be like, well, how on earth are they going to do that? You know, unless, obviously, they take body cam footage and stuff, but what a process. But, yeah, so people that arrived as this was happening couldn't come in.
So, you know, if you had a mum inside and then a daughter outside who was, you know, trying to come in and, you know, they were stopping there. So, huge breach of, yeah, of our rights. Bill of Rights Act. Yeah, exactly. But always underpin your Bill of Rights Act freedoms with your 1688 because what they're doing is they're using that Section 5 all of the time. That needs to be challenged immediately that they try it because Section 5 takes notice of group rights.
Group rights aren't contained in the Bill of Rights Act, OK? Group has no rights under the Bill of Rights Act. It's only individual rights. When anybody put anything to them, they looked at us with blank, dead eyes and they just did not care. They just really had no care for if it was right, if it was wrong, if it was anything. They just were robots. And it was just, yeah, the same as Wellington, just robots. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Got home and it just, yeah, I took like four hours to get off the adrenaline of it. I'm sorry it doesn't trump the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Domestic law is domestic law. Otherwise, we start saying, oh, yeah, but, you know, the International Commercial Code and all of that, that's globalist, right? That's what the globalists are using. OK, that's where most of the money is, of course. But what is money in the end when it's our rights that, you know, money doesn't compensate in the end, right? Or are you talking about something else, the NZBAOR? What's the NZBAOR? No, the Bill of Rights Act.
I mean, there's stuff on the government side, the Ministry of Justice confirming how they all signed up for the ICCPA, subject to certain exclusions. And those exclusions, as I have read them, are not particularly relevant to us anyway. But the ICCPA does seem to give us some good rights, which are not in the BAOR. The ICCPA has wording that is not in ours, which is deliberately left out. I have read it quite a bit. The political rights, etc.
Yeah, I forget exactly, Liz, because I haven't read it. But you see, the thing is what they'll say, and I've seen it done in an Australian court, when they were first trying to argue their right to be able to let out. It was during the early part of the lockdowns and everything. And they were saying, we want to go to work. We don't want to be locked out of our places of work, etc. And it was cases, right? And the international instruments were quoted.
And the judge said they're not part of the law of Australia. And the thing is, if we go and rely on those international instruments, they are in the control, not of our domestic courts where we can argue them. We can't go off to the International Courts of Justice. None of us have anywhere near the resources to do that. We must fight local. We must fight local. And we will win at local, because we have everything. It's all individual rights that's being infringed, right? Those international ones, they're kind of like, they're taking governments to courts, etc., etc.
But we can't use our individual rights that way. It's like a whole group of people have been slaughtered by their government. That's what's going on in those international courts, right? Our domestic courts are absolutely where we start and probably where we finish. Now, when it comes to the court-martials, I believe we should gather the prosecutors from another country and send our prosecutors to Australia or something to do their stuff, right? Because I think it's so proven.
Our legal system is too cosy-cosy with the judges. Our big movers and shakers in this country, you don't have to have much money, really, in terms of big, big, big, big money. And yet they're running the show. They're running the show. And so, yeah, that's 5,000 cuts is the effect of law. Well, you know, that's what happened to Miss J, wasn't it? In the end, it wasn't one big case or anything like that. She knew that the cases were coming, I know.
But in the end, it was like everybody was fed up. It was opinion, but it was cases as well. That she knows are coming. She knows these cases are coming. Anyway, guys, got to go to sleep. Yep, awesome. Thanks, Liz. It's been amazing, once again. Thanks, everybody, for coming along. And, yeah. Yeah, well, we've got one that withdrawal. We've got one in the, Jeff, we've already got withdrawal of sustenance, right? In the very, very ancient stuff.
All of these ones are all built on ancient laws under the English common law. You're not allowed to take big fines. You're not allowed to take away someone's form of sustenance. It's in the, I think it's the, it's in the, around the Magna Carta time there. You need to go through each of those Ed Wood statutes and find out where it is. Okay, guys, got to go to sleep. That's it. Definitely signing off. Yeah, awesome. Thanks, everyone.
Catch you next week. Hope you have a good weekend. Thanks, you too. Bye. See you later.
