N8WUNZ 20230315 (W) Dominos fall

The conversation starts off with greetings and small talk. They discuss a contract given to Dr. Nicky Turner's husband for training vaccinators. There are concerns about conflict of interest, but it was overridden. They also discuss the number of vaccinators and the amount of money involved. They mention the importance of educating the vaccinators and the requirement for informed consent. They talk about the role of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and its responsibilities in the government. They mention a case involving the Minister for COVID Response, Chris Hipkins, and the issue of exemptions for vaccinations. They discuss the power and scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act and how it relates to vaccination orders. They mention the lack of power to demand personal medical information without consent. They discuss a specific case involving a probation officer and the lack of designation in the New Zealand Gazette. They argue that the state and its agents cannot exerc I'll do Facebook too. And then that's all good to go. Okay. So are we right on time tonight? We are. We are, yes, she said. Emphasis on we. Yep. Okay. Well, it's hard to know where to start. Good evening, Facebook. Good evening, Facebook. Welcome along if you're watching the recording or with us live. Hi, guys. Hello. Hi, there. Hi, Ellen. Hi, how are you doing? Good. Good, good. We've got more people coming in. Right. Okay. Wait a few more minutes. What about Nicky Turner and husband? Were you talking about something before I came in? No. Oh, that was them getting the contract, wasn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Somebody tell me about that a little bit more. I haven't had time to catch up on it much. Oh, I sent you a link to the Herald. Oh, yeah, I couldn't open it because I haven't got a subscription on it. It should have opened in the next link that I sent you. Oh, did it? Okay. Well, tell me about it anyway. It's quicker that way. Well, I guess, you know, from my scant memory of what I do, is that Dr Nicky Turner seemed to be driving a contract that was between something to do with the training of the vaccinators, I think. But anyway, her husband got given the contract. He was a university man and he got given the contract. It was worth quite a lot of money. No conflict of interest at all? None at all. Whatsoever. Nothing was easier. Yeah, that's interesting. So those would be the people that would be first up for what did the training consist of? Did all of those people – actually, if you just give me two minutes, I'll grab the newspaper article and then I'll have something to speak from. They must have known more about the vaccination and the disease of anybody in the country because nobody else seemed to know much about it. Because they had to have enough under the regulation. They had to have enough information to be able to impart it to somebody so that they could give informed consent. Yep. That's Regulation 44A. No, I don't understand. Okay, so it was about educating the vaccinators. Yeah. They had a contract that was $16.5 million. Wow. How many vaccinators were they supposed to get out of that? It just said the army of vaccinators. Okay. To administer the new Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. And it raised conflict of interest at the time. But because Becky Turner was so embroiled in the government, for example, Aisha Vera – I think her name is, Vera. Oh, Vera Allen, yes. And so it was overridden, basically. Hmm. Right. So they don't give any details. I wonder if people could start asking for details of her husband, whatever his name is. It's not Turner, is it? No, it's Dr. Dowell, Tony Dowell, C-O-D-E-L-L. A direct contractor to IMAC. He helped make the evaluation requirement. So IMAC led the contract. Yes. And, of course, Dr. Becky Turner is the head of that. She's the medical director of IMAC. Oh, she's the medical director, is she? Yes. Oh, wow. She also works for the Auckland University, I believe. So it went to the Otago University, that contract, and that's where Dr. Dowell works. Oh, okay. So they have a long-distance relationship. Seems like it. They're both horrors, aren't they? So it's sort of like understandable, I suppose. I wonder what the world record is for charges of murder and manslaughter are. I think manslaughter is something like 14 years, I think. Yeah, but what's the world record for how many charges is that? How many charges? Oh, I don't know. No. Well, I think probably Fauci might actually take the record because he was sort of the— Yeah, but parties, too. You know, parties, too. Whether to start at the top end or the bottom end is a waste, but maybe it's a pincer action. You know, start with the— either have a go at the people who did the vaccination or the ones who ordered them to do it or the ones who were making money out of them doing it or whatever. I mean, they all made money out of doing it, depending on what they got paid each injection. Here was something that I had written back on 8 March 2021 to Sue Gordon, who's the deputy chief executive of the COVID-19 health system response. Now, I had the names of all of them who were in this, and I was looking through my paperwork trying to find the names of the people who were involved in what's called the COVID-19— what's it called? COVID-19 response—not response team. Maybe it's called that. I've got it here somewhere because I was looking for it. They're the ones that, if you made an inquiry, like an OIA request, that's where it went. Now, it sits within the Office of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister in Cabinet. And I was looking for it. I was looking to see who were under the minister of COVID response, which, of course, is Hipkins, right? So I got—where are we? I found out that—well, where are they now? I think I might have—oh, no, here we are. Oops, no, that's the wrong one. Right, where has it gone? Yeah, so they've sort of gone off and sort of rejigged themselves. All of their responsibilities, they were set up on 1st of July 2020, and they took over from the crisis management team that had already been part of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I think. And they have—and some of the stuff just makes you so sick. But all of this came about because I was, of course, thinking about the latest case, which is called Wright Sales and Sales Against the Minister for COVID Response, who is Chris Hipkins. And I got hold of it today. Erica found it for us, or someone found it for us. Yeah, OK. Now, who are they? So the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is a—it's a business group. Within the—it's not a government department, per se. It says, DPMC occupies a unique position at the centre of New Zealand's system of democratic government. Its purpose is to advance an ambitious, resilient, and well-governed New Zealand. It's got an—provide an administrative level, the constitutional and institutional glue that underlies our system of parliamentary democracy, ensuring that executive government functions well. Now, executive government is—that is the crown, basically, OK, which requires us to maintain close relationships of trust and confidence with the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, and Cabinet. So none of those are in terms of—none of them are our elected representatives, basically. The Prime Minister and Cabinet get to be there because they happen to be the party that won the election, and they get to choose who's Prime Minister and who's Cabinet. So none of them get elected to those positions. As our role and functions grow, so have the number of Prime Minister portfolios we have responsibilities within. And I think it's quite telling that they talk about their role and function growing, and then they have—then they talk about the ministerial portfolios, because the question that came to me was, if Chris Hipkins is the Minister for COVID Response, who—what is the ministry called, and who are the people that are under him? So, you know, I quite often talk about the CEO. Who are the people in this so-called Ministry of COVID Response? I couldn't find any—I couldn't find—yeah. So they are a mid-size agency of nine business units based in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. We have a unique role as a trusted advisor, leader, and steward of our system of executive government. Their overall responsibility is to help provide an administrative level, the constitutional and institutional glue, blah, blah, blah. Okay. So basically, these were the people who gave the advice to Chris Hipkins about the family carers. Now, that's what that case, Wright Sales, and—that everybody's talking about at the moment— Wright Sales and—somebody Wright, somebody Sales, and Chris Hipkins. Okay. What did they say about—what did they say in a case about the minister? At paragraph 21, the judge said—and he's called Bonaham, I think, something like that— while acknowledging that the minister did not have sufficient information before him to make the amendment order, the respondents say that there were compelling reasons to include care and support workers in the vaccinations order. These were to protect the vulnerable population who were at greater risk of adverse outcomes from COVID-19, and because the recipients of such care would have had a reasonable expectation that those providing care to them had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19, including appropriate vaccination. So that was what the other side was saying. So what they did was they had two—they sought two declarations. One was that there wasn't—that they agreed there wasn't sufficient information, but somehow the judge managed to squirrel around that and say, oh, but that didn't make the order invalid, right? So they managed to keep the validity of the order in place. Now, really what it was was an extension of—and this is pretty much the only case that has got anything to say, which was the Royal District Nursing case, where she was a family carer too, and of course it was in the Employment Court. So these people really were just getting a little more information about, in this case, about— I think they would try—what they were trying to do was say that Hipkins—that the order was invalid, right? But because it had sort of all gone by the by, if you like, the court wasn't prepared to say that. So they sort of still have hung on and clung on to this idea that this sort of stuff is valid, right? Even the District Nursing case, the Royal District Nursing case, never really grasped the bull by the horns. Well, I guess because they were never asked and it was never put to them. That the actual thing of classifying, if you like, or making out, because it was never classified as a workplace, classifying it as a public health issue and then trying to shoehorn it into the—well, shoehorning it into the employment situation is completely wrong. And that's what we've been working on this last few weeks. And the two pieces of legislation that I've talked about in the last couple of weeks were, of course, two sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Now, I've started to write a letter to—let's see—to a lawyer for the other side in terms of what the application is of these orders if you look at what's called, really, the scope and power that is given to people under secondary legislation. It's got to be confined within a scope and it's got to have—the scope and the power have to be—have got to be made public through the New Zealand Gazette. I'm sorry, I don't get a very quick uptake on this. I never got time this afternoon. I was at the library all this afternoon, had to get back and didn't print out—well, I haven't finished the letter, but I'll show you so you can see how we use these sections. Actually, do you remember, Emma, a few days ago, I think I sent it out to you too, and I took the names out and it was a bit like the other one I'd sent about, you know, the CEO didn't have the delegation. Okay, have you got that, Emma? I think I know the one you mean. I'll go look. It says—I think it says something like application of section 1684 and— Oh, there it is, section 168 and 191. You sent it yesterday, Liz. Oh, did I? Okay. Erica, can you— Is it that one, section 168 and 191? Yeah, that's right. Do you think you could put that up, share that with us? Is that possible? Oh, I don't have it, so if— Yeah, I'll forward it to Emma. Oh, that's a good idea. Emma? Yeah. Okay, I've forwarded it now, but maybe you have to share it with her as well, Liz. Oh, well, I can't at the moment because my system's too slow and it's like when I try and even get into— I mean, I can share my screen, but— Yeah, yeah. Share content, share screen. It's not going to do it. Erica, there we go. Erica's got it. We are sharing. Okay, this one. I'm going to have to get back on the screen now. Statement of problem. Is it this one? Statement of problem. That's it? Okay, and I took the names out, right? So this is about corrections, okay? Someone who works for corrections. The applicant is a probation officer working for the Department of Corrections at Annex Road Christchurch. She has worked in this role for the past three years. From December 2021, so-and-so was required to work from home. She's a pre-existing medical condition that not only precludes her being vaccinated, but also did not allow her to wear a mask. She provided detailed doctor certificates from—and I've got a thing— in regards to mask wearing and her relevant medical condition. So-and-so is a highly qualified and valued member of the staff with the Department of Corrections. However, throughout 2022, she continued to work and to perform to a high standard. From home, the department has harassed her about her mask exemption. By the way, this is obviously before it had an edit. And at this date is preparing to terminate her employment for medical reasons. Designations and powers under section 191. Can you make it a little bit bigger? Is that possible? That's good. Yep. So-and-so became the victim of the order that corrections workers were forbidden to work unless they had received a COVID-19 injection. The order, COVID-19 Public Health Response Vaccinations Order 2021, was purported to require both the worker to refrain from working and the employer to refrain from employing the worker for the health and safety reason of passing on COVID-19 disease at work. Now, that is section 7 of the COVID-19 vaccinations order. In the early ones—well, it's been revoked now. I think it stayed the same the whole way through, actually. Health and safety at work matters are regulated by WorkSafe. However, WorkSafe has no power under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to require that any person—it's a little bit—I can't see the side of it— that any person be injected at a workplace or any other place. Parliament envisaged that WorkSafe may, in some circumstances, pass its powers on to the heads of certain government CEOs and also to the Commissioner of Police or the Chief of the Defence Force. Such designations can be found in section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. A copy of the section is below. So the Prime Minister may delegate an agency listed in subsection 3 as a designated agency having regard to the specialist knowledge of that agency. Now, I'll just stop you for a minute and go back to what we're talking about with Pipkins as the Minister of COVID Response. Oh, already, where are we? COVID Response. And the thing is that, as a minister, you're supposed to have sort of a next in line who does the operational stuff, if you like, the CEO of your ministry. I guess, I don't know, maybe somebody like Sue Gordon, who was the Deputy Chief Executive of the COVID Health System Response. Perhaps that's who it is. But anyway, certainly not anyone designated to do it, right? So it was Bloomfield, I believe, that you had to apply to for the exemptions, right? And I'm talking in the employment area here. I'm not talking about the medical area because there were two different sorts of exemptions. Can we have that up again, Erika? Okay. So in this case, we're talking about Jeremy Lightfoot. Erika, can we have this thing up again? It just keeps flicking off my screen. So we had – remember the one I read you? I don't know if I should – I'll just pop it down below, then I can read it. So, you know, it was the agencies, who they were, and it tells you all about that. Can we go up a little bit further, please? Up to 1.6 there. The appropriate person who purported to be able to issue exemptions to the Order for Corrections Worker at the relevant time is Jeremy Lightfoot, the CEO of Corrections New Zealand. However, Mr. Lightfoot was never designated as a designee in the New Zealand Gazette. That is a person able to issue exemptions under the Health and Safety at Work Act. It is required by both the HSWA and the Legislation Act 2019, section 69.1c and 69.2, that a designation be present in such circumstances. Can we go up to 1.7 for secondary legislation? Who's got control? Not me. No, it's Erica. I don't know whether she's busy. She might have gone – oh, there we go. Yeah, thanks, Erica. All secondary legislation. Now, this is the thing, because remember, the executive cannot make primary legislation. Primary legislation is Parliament's work. These people are not Parliament. All secondary legislation is required to be designated under the Legislation Act 2019. This is so that the correct chain of command and scope of the exercise of power is maintained. The scope of power that can be exercised in demanding personal information about medical status is illustrated by section 168.4 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. So we know that basically section 191 is notification of who's got the job. 168.4 is – well, I've just put a part of it, but if you look at the whole of section 168 in the Health and Safety at Work Act, it tells you what WorkSafe can do. So if you've got a designation to do what WorkSafe has to do, right, you should be able – for example, if they're asking – if they're saying to a boss, OK, we're going to cut – you've got to have this register. And come to think of it, I think the register was under sections 7 and 8, and it was all about how the boss was to spell it in and, you know, and he was to look at the – get the information off the worker, et cetera, et cetera. I remember a lot of you said, that's my private information. You were absolutely right. And section – because that is one of the powers that a health and safety at work inspector – sorry, a WorkSafe inspector has that power, right, to inquire about things, right? But here's what they don't have. So they can get documents and they can test work surfaces. They're not allowed to test anybody's body without the fully informed consent of that person. That's section 172 of the Act. But under section 168, despite subsection 1e – can we make it a little bit bigger? If all or any part of the information relates to a person's health status and identifies the person, an inspector may not, without the person's consent, require the production of information or examine the information or make a copy of or take an extract from the information. So there you are. Not allowed. Who got the stuff on the register, right? Because it wasn't WorkSafe, obviously. They couldn't. This was just a set-up, right? You can't give a power that you don't have, right? So Hipkins didn't have power. Hipkins couldn't give the power to anybody. Didn't have it. WorkSafe would be the logical person, the logical regulatory agency. We know they didn't have the power to have any information about your health status. Do you see the bomb? Do you see the blow-up? Do you see it all falling to pieces and over their heads and then dissolving into a puff of smoke? Yep, definitely. So they don't have the power. Going back to – I'll just have a little read more. So what I say, even had Corrections, through its CEO, been empowered to become the regulator, and WorkSafe said, which it was not, it could not have by law have demanded to see any of so-and-so's medical information without her consent. No power may be exercised by the state or its agents. That is not specifically governed by law. The facts that have given rise to the problem of the matter are the applicant, da-da-da, and then it goes on. Okay, so that's fine. Thanks, Erica. That's great. So, you know, section one – and this is how it goes. It goes from sort of one thing to the next. It's step by step. It doesn't all appear at once because, for a start, and I talked about this last time, it appears that the people who wrote this stuff up, which are also in the Parliamentary Council office, and they're the draftsmen or draftspeople, they're a set of lawyers who don't obviously know anything about the Health and Safety at Work Act because they were always trying to keep us away from it. Because under the Health and Safety at Work Act, somebody bright spot might have said, how come, you know, you've got – it's not – and if I look in the Health Act, notifiable diseases, you've got a separate section for workplace diseases. It's not in there. It's in the other public health diseases area. Right? Two separate things. So, we go back then again to that case in 13 January 2021, Supreme Court of the United States. It was the Independent Businesses Federation who took the Department of Occupational Health and Safety – oh, where have we gone? Where are we? They took the Occupational Health and Safety Department, or called OSHA. Did you mean to share that area? They took them to court, to the Supreme Court of the United States. What's this one? I'm not sure, I think. Oh, this is where they put the information. This is where the information about whether people were vaccinated or not went. It went into the airpoints. Database. Database. Oh, my God. Really? Yes. What the? Wow, that's really awesome. No chance of that getting mixed up with anything else. I know exactly. They know exactly. And it tells you – it's very handy for people who want to do all sorts of tracking and selling and counting and spying and snooping. It tells you, you know, you buy all of the stuff and you get airpoints. They know what you've bought. They know what videos you've watched. Of course. Of course. Very clever, aren't they? Very clever. Very clever, aren't they? Very clever. So sharp they've cut themselves. Cut themselves badly. So we've got an Air New Zealand group and I'm writing the same sort of letter pointing out sections 191 and 168 subsection 4. Screen keeps going all over the place. And I didn't get time to write it all up all this afternoon because I arrived at the library a bit late because I started to watch a movie that – where have we gone? A movie that Emma recommended. And this came off the back. And this is kind of – it's all tangentially – it's all tangentially together, you know? This is the thing. All because of – where are we going? And then we're going to history. Okay? This is all to do with the history of the British Crown. It's why they're – and, you know, why I wanted to talk to you a little bit about it tonight because I don't think Charles is going to get crowned. I think we're going to bring down the whole damn lot around the ears before it happens. And it's very, very important. Where's the picture gone, Emma? I can't get back in. You should have a little icon down the bottom. Oh, no, it might be – you'll be on Windows. Yeah. Oh, where have we gone? Keep tabbing around. You'll get it. I can see you. Okay. You can see me. Okay, well, I'll look at you in the tiny little screen there. Maybe if I pick up here. Does that help? Oh, dear. No, it doesn't. Anyway. Anyway, the movie is called To Kill a King, and it's about the English Civil War. Just after the end of the English Civil War, it starts in late 1848. Now, you've heard me talk – sorry, 1648. You've heard me talk about 1649 a little bit, I think, which is the year January 30, 1649, was the execution of Charles I. Now, remember that this Charles coming up wants to be Charles III. Charles II was Charles I's son, and should never by law have sat on the throne. Because of an act, the day he was executed that said it would be – you would be hung and drawn and courted as a traitor to proclaim a king of England, Ireland, and the dominions thereof, which included, of course, at that stage, the 13 colonies of the United States. Plus they had some other stuff out in Barbados and God knows where. You know, basically, what was the British Empire at that stage? But Scotland's not included, right? So after the death of his father, he was – I think he was over in France with his mother, the son. And he – so it was 10 years after that that Cromwell died. And he – it was handed on to his son, but his son really wasn't up to it. And, I mean, it was also – in terms of a republic, you don't hand on stuff to your son. You know, you have to have another election for who's going to be the Lord Protector, which is what Cromwell was. But anyway, it didn't happen, and probably that was their downfall, because apparently Cromwell was encouraged to be crowned king, but he turned it down. But I found out a little bit more history that I believe an ancestor of mine had a bit to do with making sure he didn't get crowned king as well, and got sent to Jersey – not Jersey – to Dernsey in the Channel Islands for his trouble. But anyway, the thing is that what – so this movie is about another general in the army called Thomas Fairfax, and about the shenanigans that went on before the trial and the execution of Charles I. The royalists were defeated. Parliament was still in place, but Parliament had in it still parliamentarians that were basically on the side of the king. But the army were the ones, of course, who suffered all of the losses. None of them were out fighting. Some of the – like General Fairfax was, and Oliver Cromwell was out fighting, but not most of the people in Parliament. So anyway, what had happened was that they had plotted with the king to basically – they said to him, okay – they presented a treaty to him and said, right, you've got to – we've won the war against you. Now, to make a peace treaty with us, you've got to guarantee the rights – free trials, jury of your peers, no one above the law and all of that stuff. And he wouldn't sign it. He said, no, I'm – God has anointed me king of this country, and nobody has the right to say what I do. I will not be – this is the true history, right, of our government, right, our government. We're not talking about this in terms of what happened a whole lot – over 300 years ago in England. This is now. This is why this is going on, right, the whole thing. So they said, right. And then they found out that they'd been plotting between some of the parliamentarians and the king. And so they said, right, the army wasn't paid, and the king and these parliamentarians were trying to take off with all of – basically they looted the castles to take all of the gold and silver and jewels and paintings and everything and get them away before the people – so there was no money to pay the soldiers. So the soldiers came in and arrested the parliamentarians. And this is where you get that rule that came back in 1688 when they brought back another couple of stewards, actually. But they were supposed to be chained and shackled, and the only concession that parliament got out of it was they are not to be arrested in parliament. OK, you can arrest them somewhere else, but you can't arrest them in parliament. And that's all that stuff about parliamentary privilege, right. They can say what they want in parliament and they can't be arrested. That was the only thing because – but everything else was basically what they were trying to get the king to sign up to. So he wouldn't sign and they figured, right, the realm is in danger. There's too much plotting going on. The soldiers need to be paid. Otherwise we're going back to war again and nobody wants that, right. So they took that – they took him to trial. Now this was the first time that a king had been tried in our system. They had to develop new law for it, basically, because they had to debunk the divine right of kings' narrative. Right, that was why the king said, you can't try me either. Well, they did and they found him guilty of treason. And I think I talked about this on another Zoom, that they had evidence, right. So they had evidence that he'd ordered people to be killed, to be tortured. He'd even been there and watched it happening at some stage, etc. So he was tried and he was executed and then had 10 years of what was called the interregnum. But what was very, very important was that law that was passed on the 30th of January 1649 meant that there can be no more kings. And every king and every crown since that time has been traitorous to the people of England. We got the law, you know, traitorous to the people as the law sees it, right, because the executive, the crown, is not supposed to be making any law. They can do, they can execute law, they can be the administrator of law, but they cannot actually make any rules. And they can, without Parliament saying so. So under the 2020 Act, that's where you got the orders being made under Section 11. Problem is that they were made under an Act that had no relationship to anything in reality. It wasn't related to public health because otherwise they could have used the Public Health Act. And it certainly wasn't related to the health and safety, it wasn't related to the rules and regulations that you can make in the workplace about health and safety because that's under the Health and Safety at Work Act. But we know that WorkSafe definitely used the Health and Safety at Work Act when it approached business owners and started to shake a stick at them and say, like, the example that I got, and I don't know whether I talked about it. Did I talk about it on Wednesday, about the letter that I'd come across from November 21? No, I think I probably talked to you guys about it. Did I talk to you about it then? Yeah, you did. Yeah, that would have been last Friday it was. Yeah. Yeah. The leaked email. Yes. So we have just... Yeah, that's right, you put up the leaked email. So that realisation about, it must have been the Friday I came across it, that realisation about section 168 subsection 4, that WorkSafe itself regarded it as the regulator as far as it went to approaching businesses and saying, have you got people masked? Now, I don't know that WorkSafe went to any bosses and said, I'd like to see the register. I have a feeling they didn't. I have a feeling they didn't because nobody ever talked about that in any of the situations. If anybody knows of that happening, I'd like to know because that is a direct, you know, you can see that's a direct breach. They're not allowed to have any information about any individual's health status under the Health and Safety at Risk Act. And that's their, they are the regulator, but they are bound by that Act. And remember I've said before that the state may only do, we started off with that broad permission to us to do anything except that which is forbidden by law. But the other side of the coin is that the administrators or, you know, the courts even may not do anything except what is within the law. So they can't make law. They can't make up law as they go along. There's a little bit more leeway for that in the American system, but definitely not in our system. And I think there's a kind of, I think in that case, that right against Hipkins, or what is he called, COVID response minister. I think there's a remark about that in that case, but I'll have to tease it out a bit about, you know, if they make a mistake or they don't follow the steps properly, then it becomes invalid. And I don't think that we've ever had such glaring, missing out of a step like this, where there's been absolutely no power at all in any of the hands that it's supposed to be in. Because, of course, it was all a made up piece of rubbish to sell a drug, a dangerous drug, and force it onto people in this country. Probably. And this is where it ties up again with Charles III, right? The reason why the English people fought Bear King in the first place was because he was a traitor. He wanted the country back under Rome, right? Now, and why did they want it back under Rome? Money, right? Who's controlling all of the big funds? Yeah. Okay. So, and also, of course, there's the metaphysical, if you like. It's the end days, you know. The great and terrible of, in Rome, you know, the Satanists, basically. It's Satan. It's Satan. I mean, I know that's a big statement for people to get, but you'll see. You'll see. It's correct. Okay. So, I have a friend in the UK. She's, she was the one who found the Act of Parliament for me, even though it's in every, it's down in the University of Otago, in a three-volume, three volumes there of all of the laws of the interegrum, which was, you know, dissolved the House of Commons, you know, stopped people having to pay all sorts of money to the church and God knows what. And they've sneaked a whole lot of it back in. But the main thing is that they couldn't do any of that if they didn't have a king to sign it all off. Because we've got, of course, in the form of the Governor General, we've got the Governor General signing all of our stuff off, right? The Governor General is a big fraud and always has been. Every Governor General has been a big fraud. You couldn't have a Governor General who was the representative of a fraudulent king or queen. Right? So, it is all going to hit the fan. My friend in the UK will get together with some other people and they will start using the fact that there is a law still on the books that can't be ever got rid of, because to get rid of it, you'd have to have it signed off by a Governor General or a queen or a king in that case. Now's the time to do it while Charles is uncrowned. And from the end to the third Charles forever. The second Charles got himself crowned as King of Scotland for a little while and I still haven't found out how that all ended. But he got crowned from 48 to 51, I think. It's 48 to 51. Anyway, well, that will be more of the story. But they are bloodthirsty lot. And I think that the reason why the Scots have always been pretty anti-English was, when Charles II was invited back, as they say, there is a lot going on. The restoration. He went and he sent off to Scotland and hounded down, I think they killed about, I think it was 18,000 people up in Scotland, were hunted down because they were what were called the Covenanters. And basically they're church people who, you know, objected to the fact that the so-called king said he was a representative of God. And I'd say they found that a pretty hard pill to swallow. And, you know, and a bless for me, basically. Such a, you know, both him and the father, very, very bad men, very bad men. But, yeah, they didn't take, you know, it wasn't just political discussions then. They came after you and did all sorts of terrible things to you. But we have now our chance over 300 years later to set it right. And we're all of us here this time. Exactly right. You go back through your ancestry, guys, I think you'll find you've probably got some ancestors back there that fought in those wars. Hey, Liz, I was wondering if you wanted to remind us about the constitutional monarchy side of things. That's the thing, isn't it, with William and Mary? Yeah, so we've talked a little bit about, you know, what happened at the time of Charles's first execution. Charles II, after the, you know, there was enough people, still traitors in Parliament, that wanted to invite Stuart back as soon as they possibly could. They got him back. They had until 1688, so I think it was 68, it was about 40 years, 68. No, it's only 20 years, isn't it? Let's see, 1469, say 1650 to 1660, so 28 years, about 28 years of the Stuarts back on the throne. And this is all the Bonnie Prince Charlie stuff and everything, you know. They were proper baddies. And the English people, I don't think they wanted to, well, the lawyers probably had decided, well, gosh, we should have perked up long ago and said, oh, it was not supposed to be any of these things, by the way. And so they invited William and Mary back, who were also Stuarts, although they're Hanover, and they're the descendant, you know, the present king, not king, still not king, king and waiting and Queen Elizabeth, etc. They're descendants of these Hanoverians from Hanover, which is German, of course, but they were also Stuart bloodline cousins. Yeah, pretty close. And, yeah, so they invited them back, but they basically offered them the same terms as Charles I had turned down. And so, you know, he got tried for his crimes. So the deal was you come back, but 1688 was the treaty you signed, basically. Those were the terms, and they signed them. So they're back, and basically what the terms are, obey the law, obey the ancient rules and customs that we have had enshrined since 1275, in which we have inherited under the Imperial Laws Application Act, 1988. Which, of course, 1988 takes us squarely up to 300 years. Okay, so we've got 1988, which was the Imperial Laws Application Act, and that's the basis of our constitution, all of those laws there. And, of course, our Bill of Rights is built on those as well. You know, so that's kind of the modern up-to-date stuff, which has got a bit more in it than was, you know, so, you know, they didn't have Section 11 in there, for example. That's not in there. But, yeah, we will go on without a crown. There is not going to be any more executives in this country. We are not going to have any more elected representatives who then form a club and lord it over us as if they were a pretend crown. And this is why I say our new constitution will outlaw political parties because it does not fit with our law. Our law says that gangs aren't allowed to lord it over the minority or even especially over a single person, right, because all of our laws are based on our individual right of free will. And if any of those rights are enshrined under the Bill of Rights Act are infringed, we have, you know, we have every right to take that before the courts and get declarations. Now, the declaration that this latest one got, as I've said, it doesn't involve money, and they're sort of already saying, oh, well, you know, under the Royal District Nursing case, yeah, the Crown is making sure that people get paid, you know, family carers, et cetera, get paid. But they're trying to ring fence it, as usual, and say, oh, you know, it's only a small number of people and doesn't mean the stuff was invalid and all of that. Of course, it means it's invalid. But they still haven't opened up their eyes to the fact that there was, it was all smoke and mirrors. There was no, nothing that you could do to workers in particular, because we were protected. We were protected, not affected, protected. But, of course, they wanted to wreck the country because they want to now, you know, Charles was all keen to have the rights of indigenous people and the UN and all of that, you know, and their WEF, he's all pally-pally with those lot. Yeah, yeah. Not to be part of king of the world again, you know. Yeah, it ain't going to happen. No. Yeah. So, 300 years of history and recent, well, last three years. It's awesome. It's just coming together, isn't it? It is coming together. Yeah. Absolutely coming together. Yeah. And, of course, our allodial is the result of the fact, you know, that we now know the truth. Yeah. I mean, it was always there, but we now know that's the truth. Yeah. Yeah. Jeff's got his hand up. Is he? I can only see you. That's all right. Oh, dear. Sorry about that. No, it's something I did. It's something I did. Right. Jeff, do you want to go for it? Yeah. There's just a couple of things I wanted to touch on tonight. First of all, these historical films. I came across an interesting little series recently called Gunpowder. And you can watch it on the FMovies.co site. It's about the gunpowder plot. And it's quite interesting. And it shows how much treachery and deep state and spying there was, even back in the early 17th century. So Gunpowder. It's only three episodes, and it's worth a look. The other thing I wanted to ask you was, you know that data and statistics site that we were talking about where the census thing is? Yep. Okay. Now, I went and had a look on the – what was it called? The Gazette. And it was gazetted and signed. But where would I find – would that have to have some designee to enforce it, that particular act? And if so, where would I find that? No, the acts don't have to be gazetted because they're acts of Parliament. They can be found in New Zealand legislation, and you can read the whole thing. But that one was gazetted. Was it? Yeah, because I went and had a look. Oh, okay. That's why I wondered if it was gazetted. That's interesting. They don't gazette acts of Parliament, usually. Well, it's there. Because I had a – What's it called again? Data and Statistics Act, I think, 2022. Hmm. I had a guy from Statistics New Zealand in the cab from Paihia to Kerikeri, so we had quite an interesting little chat on the way out. Anyway, that's by the by. So, I didn't – But you should have one called Regulations under it, Geoff. Well, it said Gazette. No, but in the Gazette, you shouldn't say Regulations. Well, I could always go and have another look. But I did a search for that, and it came up. And it was August 2022 when it was first done. Oh, yeah. But the other interesting little thing, Naomi and I were sort of working on the band, and we kept hearing this voice saying, Hello, hello, hello. I thought, what's going on here? Anyway, there was this woman and her mate, and they just drove straight up the driveway. Nobody leave. And she says, Are you going to fill out your census? Oh, yeah. So, I said, Well, actually, you're trespassing. Get off my land. Go away. And she didn't like that. But the thing that intrigued me was, here it is, the 15th of March, and she's coming around asking, Are you going to fill it out? I should have said, Well, how do you know we haven't? Anyway, she didn't like that. But I read on a post somewhere where you tell them to go away if there's trespassing and not take anything with them, and they went. Yeah. So, that was interesting. So, if any of y'all get these people coming around again, and we've got our No Trespass sign on the driveways from way back, which totally ignored that. Mine's got a feature on it, too. So, I'm actually tempted to, I was going to look and see what the process is for, you know, holding someone accountable for trespass. I said to the woman, Did you not see my sign on my gate? And she's like, What sign? I said the No Trespass sign. She's like, Oh, no. Oh. Have you filled out your census form? Oh, man. They must have spent the whole time teaching them how to try and get around. Yeah. I had one. I told you about her, eh? She said, I was going to fill mine in a different way. Anyway, just put not applicable all over it. And anyway, then she said, I said, But it was the 7th, wasn't it? And she said, Oh, yeah. Were you home on the 7th? Was anyone here on the 7th? I said, No. Oh, I should have asked that first. So she said, You'll have been filled in somewhere else. I said, Oh, okay. So away she went. Because I don't have a place where I can stick stuff on my, you know, I rent. And it's a shared driveway, so I can't. But yeah, I think the trespass signs need to say, This includes the driveway. But then you wouldn't get any, you know, it's kind of like you might want your post brought up. Well, they actually like, they opened the gate and drove another 30 metres up to the house. At least, probably even further than that. But the thing about post boxes is that they are on the public highway. If you look where they're located, they're not on your property. And this apparently is one of the significant things about post boxes. It is, yeah. The other thing, what's the other thing? Oh, yeah. That about the fee schedule. See on that vaccine no trespass sign, we've had that for ages. It also says that you're going to pay $50 a minute in advance if you want to talk to us. So you're alright. Mine's like 10 grand. Oh, $50 a minute, I'll be happy with that. Anyway, I just thought I would ask that. So where would I find the designee if I wanted to go and have a look again? Oh, no, I don't know if that is a word that they use in any of the legislation. But I just said, well, you know, if you're designated, you're a designee. And it didn't come up as what is this word. So I guess it's a correct word. Okay, I've just thought, anyway, gunpowder worth a look. Well, thank you very much, Geoff. Right. Very good. That was the Catholics trying to blow up the one who was on the throne at the time happened to be a Protestant. But it would have been fairly close to the time of Elizabeth I, wouldn't it, Geoff? Well, it was 1605, I think. Yeah, what year did she die? Before my time. Yeah, but I think she might have died in 1601. Elizabeth I. Well, yeah, we looked at the right post that was on the throne at the time. I tell you, I don't know how accurate it was. So it was a guy. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, I mean, none of them and all of them sitting on the throne. And, you know, that's another word for a toilet. Pretty much. That's a good point. They shouldn't keep themselves to themselves and not inflict themselves on us. That used to be the expression in England, sitting on the throne. We still say that here a little bit. Yes, well, I think a lot of them are going to be caught with their pants down because it's, you know, the time has come. It's been farewell. Yeah, well, not so much farewell. Good riddance. Good riddance. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. Go back to hell where you came from. Yeah. Speaking of farewell, someone got the boot today. The Minister of Police. Yeah, did he get the boot, Erica? Stuart Nash? Something that he apparently did two years ago. Not sure I believe that. But, I mean, it was on mainstream media. Tell more. Tell more. Well, this is just what my TV operator told me was on the news. He got fired. Well, he didn't get fired. He got fired, but you don't know what it was supposed to be for. He didn't get fired. He resigned. Oh, he. No, he didn't. He just got fired. If he didn't resign, the Prime Minister was going to fire him. And apparently it's something he did two years ago. This is what one news, you know how good one news is. No, no, no, the Minister of Police. Right, the Commissioner, you're next, Costa. You're next. I've got one. Fight the dust. Yeah, the imposter. Here we go. Well, I'll tell you what, all of these will be thinking, oh, oh, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll as, you know, all the same thing. Now, what I noticed is that Yardley was against the Minister for MBIE, basically, and it was Wood. Okay? So, so the Yardley case is also talked a little bit about in this latest case. So, none of these people, none of these Ministers had any right to be talking to people about their employment conditions, because under the State Sector Act, they're not allowed to interfere in employment of any of the state, you know, state servants. So, that is why, that is why, sorry, Geoff, go on. I was going to say, in that release that you were just reading, it also says that Chris Hipkins interfered as Police Minister. If you go back to that, it lists Poto, what's-his-face, and Hipkins. Poto Hurr. She was a Police Minister too, wasn't she? No, maybe Poto Williams was the Police Minister before Nash. That's right. Poto Williams interfered, and Hipkins interfered as Police Minister. Actually, I complained to the bloody police about Poto Williams. Now, what was it? And they wouldn't take the complaint. I rung them up and said, I think I phoned them and said, oh, you, you know, they're saying that you have to get in the Minister. I can't remember what it was now. I did write up about it. And I wrote to her, and I'll find it on my system next time around. We'll talk about it. Because, yeah, there was interference by the Minister. That's right, I know. This was at the time that the people who worked in one of the ports, was it? What did they work for? I think it might have been one of the Fletcher's ones, actually. No, no, it was the ports. Somebody working in the ports, and they were told, you can get an exemption if you, you know, for these certain sorts of things. And I think it was even the, they said, that's right, they said the 7A exemption had to be sent to Wellington. And I'm looking at the order and saying, this was before the 7A exemption got taken away. And they said, oh, they told this guy up in Whangarei Port that he had to send it, that they wouldn't know if he'd got the exemption because it had to go to Wellington. I don't know why I was writing about Pota Williams, but anyway, maybe I was writing to her and saying, you know, this shouldn't be going on. Anyway, but anyway, that whole thing about, you know, that 7A exemption was one that was just between you and your doctor. Now we found out, of course, that they never had any power to do any of this stuff, so it all, but we had to go and find out all the corruption all over the place. So I guess that's why we had to do it. Yeah, I'll look up Pota Williams, that letter. Yeah, I rang them up and I said, you know, I said no, to the people at, because you ring up crime stoppers or something like that. Yeah, that's funny, isn't it? Only the crimes they want you to ring up about. Yeah. What, who you've been talking to over the fence? Oh, yeah. Yes, as I know, she's out with a yoga mat the whole time. She's visiting somebody with a yoga mat. She plaits her hair. She plaits her children's hair, and I know she goes on Trademen, is interested in children's secondhand clothing. What amused me, I got a phone call from Crime Stoppers a few weeks ago, asking me if I'd like to contribute. I said, well, what do you all do? She said, oh, well, we work with the police. I said, well, if you're working with them, I mean, forget any money out of me. Goodbye. Well, they wanted money off you. Yeah. Oh, I see. I thought they wanted you to contribute to crime. That's shocking. No, I'll leave that to the cops. They're better at it than I am. Oh, yeah, they're asking me for money. Absolutely. We said, no, don't you understand? The end of the world. I must tell you this before we go. I have seen a Himalayan possum. Oh, true. Himalayan possum, was he? Yeah, I saw him laying in the road. Himalayan in the road. Himalayan possum. Himalayan possum, Himalayan in the road. Himalayan rabbit. Well, no, Himalayan surimi. I haven't seen how they make it. Oh, my gosh. I looked at it in the supermarket and I thought, no, I'm not having any of that. Oh, what was it, Liz? Surimi. You know, that stuff that is supposed to be crab sticks. Oh, yeah, surimi in my terrible language. Yeah. Oh, that's what you can find. If you go over to the COVID-19, it's called COVID-19 group. Go to the, if you want some really spooky stuff. It's in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. You go to the COVID-19 and then you look at their press releases. When I got these press releases, and the latest one is about, you know, how did, how, what is our messaging being like? You know, we're looking about how people felt and reacted about the COVID over the last two years. You can see it's all psychological bullshit. This is Burrell, I think, is the author of it. Go and have a look. But there's a whole load of them and it'll be all about, because they got all of the, you know, they probably have got names that they've attached to all of the people who've queried it. And, you know, how many, what was it, what was the uptake and what was the, you know, what, how much money, you know, what sort of, how much money you had or how much they could push you before you, you know, you gave them and all of that psychological stuff will be in there, behavioural psychology. And where was that, Liz, was that in the? It's in the, those are the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Oh, yeah. Yeah, whatever. And then just look down the list and you'll find, which is where you send all your OIAs, and you'll find COVID-19 groups. And then, I had, and that's what I was looking for tonight in my paperwork, but I've got so much stuff on. Prime Minister and Cabinet. Yeah, and watch paint dry. No! You like all of this stuff, but it gives you a bit of an insight into the craziness of these people, you know. They all need to go and see the Employer Assistance Programme. They all can sit around contemplating their navels together. So this Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, is that it? Yeah, that's right. And there's somebody on there, there's a group on there called COVID-19 group. There we go, look at that. Yeah, COVID-19 group, that's them. And I had a, I had at one time, a list of who they were, but they've probably hidden themselves now. It's policy. So they've all gone over, or going over, no later than the 30th of June this year to, what is it? Manatu Hauora, I don't know who that is. So you've got the, so it's still, yes, so they're going to, where are they going? Workers transition to the Manatu Hauora, oh, it's the Ministry of Health. Manatu means ministry, okay. I wonder where that word came from. It sounds like a transliteration to me. That's Manatu Hauora. Yeah. And the Fatu, I don't know what the Fatu is. Let's just bung a word together. Yeah, yeah, what's Fatu mean? Any idea, anyone? Overweight. Fatu. They were like pop them. Anyway, they're going there on the 30th of June. So the, I'll tell you what, anybody in the health system, please guys, you know, preserve your sanity, get out. They're still going to be going on with this stuff. Yeah. So then I've still got a website. I've got a social media channel. Further down there. I've got a social media channel. And I think if you go to the social media channel, that's probably where you can see there. Fatu is the weaving process that brings together the ahau, horizontal thread, and the whenu, vertical thread. There you go. So it's a weaving process. What about doing medicine? Any of that? I'd rather talk about this stuff. The weaving process in a really nefarious way. Well, I don't know. It's kind of like they should go and do a bit of nursing and see what, you know, how do people feel about it? It bloody hurts when I get a heart attack, you know. How do you feel about losing your job? It bloody makes me angry. And then, you know, you go and then people go to the authority. Oh, they were angry about it. Yeah, they had the gall to present a letter from Voices for Freedom. Yeah. They did other imaginative stuff. But even though their work was finished, it's nothing to do with the authority. Anyway. Yeah. Okay. Here we go. People get a look at that and they know where to find it now. Yeah, yeah. As you say. We'll watch Fatu. But anyway, thank you guys. I'm going to get the fly spray out and spray these mosquitoes now. I know, they're getting me too, little sobs. Yeah. Oh, very good. Oh, that was awesome, Liz. Thank you. That was a different night tonight, wasn't it? Oh, I also found, just quickly, because what I'll probably be able to give you on Friday night is the full letter that's going to point out some other interesting stuff about the Air Border Orders that's also going to go off to Air New Zealand. So in New Zealand, there was a health, so which were the equivalents? Because I was looking for the equivalent of Section 83. In New Zealand, it's Section 83 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. In Australia, it's the Work, Health and Safety Act 2011. In Canada, it's, in Australia, that's Division 6, Section 84. In Canada, it's the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is the same name as the American one, 1990. Canada, it's Part 5, Section 43, 3B. In Canada, in the USA, it's the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1970, and you'll see that quoted in that American Supreme Court case where they decided six judges to three that OSHA mandate promulgated by Biden and that affected 84.2 million workers that our dumb lawyers in New Zealand didn't even bat an eye at about should be struck down. In England, it's the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. And because the English, it might be, and they might have another extra act called the Employment Rights Act. And I think it might be in Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act. Yeah, they've got a special act all about it. Okay, I'm not sure of the year of the Employment Rights Act. It's in the 80s sometime. Yeah, they also have a Health and Safety at Work Act, I think. But they've got an Employment Rights Act as well. Okay, so, you know, from all over the world, boys and girls, let's get together. Let's get this sorted this time. Yep. Yep. Just, Lynette, you mentioned also be aware if our banks go down, we are only insured for 100k. Right. We are not. We have no insurance at all yet. Go and have a look at the bill. It's still in its third reading. It's not an act. We have no coverage at all. So if the banks go down, they'll come for the first dollar. Believe me. Go check it out for yourself. Yeah, I agree, Jeff. And if they do leave us any money, it will be in their centralised thing, which is why they're not collapsing it now, because they're not ready. So make other plans, people. Stash your cash, folks. Told you before, stash your cash. Yep, that's right. Buy gold and silver or land or commodities, food. Anything tangible. Livestock. Yep. Yep. But we definitely have no insurance. Tangibles. That's correct. Even stock up on food if that's all you've got. Yeah, exactly. Food, water. Pay your bills in advance. That's another good recommendation. Even a year in advance if you can. Biden is saying the banks in America are all safe. So you know that the banks in America are not safe. No, they're not. Well, they won't have any either, though, Jeff. I mean, the thing is, what is the use going to be, the use of money, if you haven't got your health, right? What the hell use is it? You can't eat it. If you've got cash, you can still buy and sell. It's leaving it in digits in the bank. I'm not saying don't have it, but I'm just saying they think if they gather everything up and take everything, it's going to be all good. But the thing is that they're also destroying the earth at the same time, and of course their own health, you know, because they're not going to get away with this. No. And so, you know, they won't be able to buy their way out of it in the end. They're all insane, aren't they? They are insane. They haven't thought this through. All that interbreeding that's happened over the... Yep. Schwab is now pushing, Schwab is pushing now one child only for the white race in America. That's his latest thing. What's he wanting to do? You know the Chinese where they had this one child only per family? Oh, yes, yes. Well, Schwab is pushing that for America, for the white people in America now. That's his latest thing. It's all out there. That one child per family thing in China, though, was not for what were called the indigenous. They were trying to build up the indigenous. They've got this bloody crazy idea. Okay? Very, very crazy stuff. And I don't know, I've sent out something to some of you. What the hell was it called? The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology. Oh, you sent it to me. Yeah, that was nice. About cloning, not just cloning, but also, because they're not particularly wanting, although they're probably wanting more of themselves, but it's illegal, of course. Well, in this country it is, but obviously we could do it here, otherwise we wouldn't have the law. But it also forbids hybrids, which is putting animal DNA into humans. Yeah, I read about that. Because, because, because. And I mean, you guys might sort of think, wow, where is these conversations going? But, this was the, you know, if a lot of people talk about the Anurangi and everything, I thought, what? Are you kidding me? But this is what they did. They were breeding with animals as well. And that is what they think is a bloody good idea. Because they think, you know, they can do anything they want. God didn't put animals and us together, made us separate, you know, where we have dominion over the animals. They don't like all of that. Some of them even think that they, you know, they want to be half horses or half God knows what. They're doing it so-called lawfully, because they don't seem to have any law in China, except what they want to impose on people as, you know, they're slaves. But yeah, the Chinese are doing it and there's even pictures of what's coming out. Chipkins put that up today. What? Put what up? The Deposit Compensation Scheme protects people's money. Okay. Well, yeah, I'm sure we'll all be okay. Don't worry about the money, guys. Just make sure you're keeping the fight, okay? Yep. Don't worry. That's the deposit guarantee thing that they're working on. It was going to be $50,000 originally. Now it's going to be $100,000. But until this thing becomes an act, there's nothing. So we're almost screwed with the open bank resolution thing. Yeah, that's right. Well, we talked about the... But I'll tell you what, if it was guaranteed at $50,000 or whatever or $100,000 or whatever or $1, everybody gets that haircut. We can live on $1 or something, or we're ready to go into our communities and help each other out, like they did without the help of the bloody state down in Hawke's Bay. Those people who can't get by without their lattes every five minutes, how do you think they're going to get on? They haven't got anybody to do anything for them. They don't know how to do anything. They've always had the money. They're going to lose it, and then they'll have to do it for themselves. And they are far more likely to throw themselves off the cliffs, right? That happens. Just in case you're interested and you haven't heard, in America, the FDIC normally shows up to $250,000. But because the vast majority, over 90% of the people with money in that Silicon Valley bank were way over $250,000, now the FDIC is going to guarantee everything. So just think about that. What's the worry then, if they're going to guarantee everything? Well, because they can't do it. See, if it was only $250,000... Yeah, well, this is the thing. Because they're in love with money. They're focused on money. They don't even know that there's other things. They don't even know that there's love of your fellow man. And dignity. And, you know, that we're special. Okay? They don't even understand that. And so when their money's gone, or they lose any of it, they react extremely badly. They kill themselves. That's what happens to them. The other thing is, of course, that a lot of Chinese had got money in that bank. And so now the Americans are bailing out the Chinese. That won't go down well either. It's amazing stuff going on. It is amazing, isn't it, Jeff? It is amazing. But always remember, we're protected. Yeah, we're protected. All the big guns whipped all their money out a week ago, didn't they, before that collapsed? Oh, fancy that. Well, and some of them sold shares, millions of dollars worth of shares as well. The director. Sure. They couldn't do anything, though. I mean, this is the thing. What are you going to do? Well, they got it out of the company. That's the main thing. They've probably got it stashed somewhere else now. Anyway. Yeah. All interesting stuff. Yeah, it is. Yeah. Absolutely. There we go. Yep. Thanks so much, everyone. Thank you very much, Lou. Yep. No worries. Another very entertaining. I don't know how I got you on full screen again. I really have no idea. That's all. It's one of those mysteries of the universe, isn't it? Oh, it is. It is. I'm going to spend some time watching a bit more of To Tell a King tonight. Yeah, that's it. I love all that. Don't forget Gunpowder. No, that's a good one. I don't want to forget Gunpowder. Not Gunsmoke? Gunpowder. Gunpowder. Gunsmoke used to be on a Friday night on the radio. Yeah. I watched one of those last night, actually. 1955. Oh, wow. Yeah. Was it also? I thought it was. Oh, was it a TV program? Was it? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. It wasn't a radio. My dear wife wanted to watch something. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.