The speaker discusses their progress in fighting against mandatory vaccinations in the workplace. They mention using the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Employment Relations Act as legal weapons in their battle. They also talk about the imbalance of power and money, the importance of individual choice, and the principles of good faith dealing. The speaker highlights specific sections of the Acts that they have utilized, such as Section 83, Section 92, and Section 168. They express confidence in their ability to win the battle and criticize the corrupt institutions and lawyers involved.
Okay, we've got the recording in progress. Now, I'm looking after things tonight because Emma's gone to Hamilton for a meeting. And one of those actual physical ones, you know, that you're actually in a room with other people. But we're getting quite used to this and we're doing okay. So welcome everybody and thanks for coming along. And Ems put up treason and strife. We were talking this afternoon about how everything's sort of coming together and we've been able to see the why and wherefore.
You know, many people have said over the these last three years, it seems to be, you know, you can only describe it as treason, you're correct. But what I'm going to do tonight before we talk about that, and people can talk about their experiences, is this piece of paper here. Now, I don't know if I can get it all in, but what it is, it's called The Legal Battlefield and it's a mind map. And Emma asked if I would sort of give an overview of all of the things that we've done since the start so that people can see, well, how far we've come, what they might be able to use, get a kind of a sense of how all the bits of the law fit into the battle.
I call these bits of law. I call them legal weapons, because what we've got here is we've got the legal battlefield and the English common law system is what's called adversarial, which means there's two sides and in a courtroom, the judge is the referee. OK, so the judge is not supposed to be bringing their own feelings about things into the courtroom. They're not supposed to be bringing in their prejudices, their political views, nothing like that, right? They're supposed to be only looking at the law.
And so in the end, there's two people in the battle. One is the lawyer for one side and one is the lawyer for the other side. We'll talk a little bit about those sort of namings of things as we go along. So I've made this line map and two thirds of it on this side here is really where we've been operating most of the time, and that's in employment law and health and safety at work law.
And on this other side here, this third here, is what's called public law. And I'm going to tell you about the way the two things work together, because things will make a lot more sense then. So I'm just admitting people. I have to do the two jobs. OK, so what we start off with, we'll start on the side of the employment law, which you guys are most familiar with. And a lot of you have sort of been around since what was called Section 83 days.
OK, so remember we had Section 83 NZ, that was the page that's now called Section 83 Gateway to, so if you put the search and you'll find that page, Gateway to Number 8 Workers Union or New Zealand Incorporated. OK, so the weapons, start with the weapons, the earliest was, remember, we're on a battlefield. The earliest was Section 83 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This was the section that I composed the letter around that gave you some weapons to start the fight with.
But we called it a Section 83 letter because that was a section that you could withdraw your labour on. I'm just looking behind you, Katrina, and there's feet hanging up. It's a bit spooky. OK, so the earliest was Section 83 of Health and Safety at Work Act, and this was the section that you could withdraw your labour because you said there's a hazard in the workplace. That hazard is the vaccination. We also put in that the hazard could also be considered to be the COVID-19 disease, right, which we've got to point out was never a workplace disease anyway.
And I think I've hammered this point quite a lot that, you know, we've got to understand straight off that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and the orders under it, particularly looking at the vaccination orders, never had anything. They didn't make any legal sense, right? So we had Section 83 and that battlefield that they were brought in, the mediation service under MBIE, the authority and the employment court. Now, we usually can't avoid the mediation service unless we're going for an urgent reinstatement because they always say, oh, we've been to mediation and there's something under the Act that says that you have to actually go to mediation first.
And it's a bit of a, it was that extra hurdle that slowed things down for people and made things difficult. And I believe actually that because this was a political move to actually take over our country by the UN, that they had plans of, you know, tipping the battlefield in their favour basically because they've got control of the institutions, but we've got control of the law. So we will win. We will win because, you know, no matter how many crooked umpires you get, how many crooked lawyers you get, they can't defeat the law.
Never, ever. Right, the institutions, as I said, are MBIE, the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. So the Section 83 letter included references to the scope of an employer's or head contractor's actions under the Health and Safety at Work Act. They had no, the Health and Safety at Work Act does not allow them any scope or power over your body. And the example of that is Section 173 in the Health and Safety at Work Act.
We had a number of what I call workplace sorties or sorties. Um, they are attacks made by troops, um, coming out of a position of defence, okay? So we were kind of on the defensive because who attacked us first? The bosses. Who attacked us first? The government, right? So we were defending ourselves, but then we started to get some weapons and we came out of our positions of defence and we went on the attack. So in the workplace, you were trying to defend yourself and say, listen, this is dangerous stuff, et cetera, et cetera.
You can't do this. I can defend myself with the law, right? Once we start to go into, and that sort of continues on a bit in the mediation world, but we've got, um, I'll just let these people in. Uh, we've, we've pretty much gone on the attack and the mediation, um, now. We're not putting up with any, um, rubbish from the mediators. We're there to get something sorted if they want to settle before we go to the authority.
And once we're in the authority, it's attack, attack, attack all the way, okay? Now, what are we using? So let's just talk a little bit about some of those, uh, sorties that we had along the way. Chris Lind, remember Chris Lind, uh, marked up what he called the Pfizer data sheet. In the first place, Chris Lind, um, got concerned about workers, um, uh, being pushed into this vaccination and had this, um, had this real neat thing going where people, um, put complaints because under the Health and Safety Work Act, you can put a complaint about a hazard.
Now, he wasn't, um, actually, um, focusing on the vaccine itself as a hazard because this, this took a long time for people to wake up to, um, you know, in terms of the bosses. He was talking about the stress that was being caused. Now, um, this, this idea that stress and, um, psychological harm can be a hazard in the workplace is, uh, I think a fairly recent addition probably came in, but it is recognised in the case law now.
So it is part of the law and you can put a, a, um, a complaint into WorkSafe. So Chris was encouraging everybody to put in these, um, complaints under the Health and Safety Work Act. Then we, we got together, we talked about things and he said, I've got this and showed us what was called the Pfizer safety data sheet. Now, Chris is a health and safety consultant of long standing, comes out of the, um, oil and gas industry, uh, very dangerous chemicals, uh, very dangerous workplaces.
And so he's very onto it in terms of, um, keeping a safe workplace. And what happens in a, in a, um, if you're, um, um, you're engaged to be a health and safety consultant or you're engaged in health and safety in the workplace, as new chemicals come into the, um, workplace and in particular, um, a data, a safety data sheet comes with them. Okay. So he must have been looking for something and he came up with the health, the, the, the data sheet.
We were thinking in the first place that this data sheet must have gone out to the doctors, but no, it didn't because the doctors weren't considered really to be, um, to be, um, you know, the, the places weren't even considered workplaces, maybe, maybe they got it. I don't know. And they didn't look at it or something like that. But you remember that what was so startling about the Pfizer, um, safety data sheet, which is something produced by the manufacturer, uh, was the fact that it was toxic to humans and the environment, right? We got some pushback on that, some bullshit about, oh, that means, you know, only if you got a big vat of it or something.
Well, no, because, um, the data sheet, um, related to those five mil bottles or whatever they were. Okay. Uh, then we also had a go at WorkSafe as the regulator of the Health and Safety at Work Act with the letter to WorkSafe. Now, this was the one, uh, where, um, we talked about section 172, um, what are you doing? And the letter basically read something like, well, what are you doing coming into my workplace? And this was a boss would write this letter.
And telling me that I have to interfere with the contracts and the bodies of my workers. You've got no right to do this because section 172 shows that you actually haven't. And, um, and you'll, and we know that you are liable because what they've done, um, with section, with, um, with work, with the 2020 Act was they have a, um, and I'll just go over to the, where are we? Medicines Regulations, Medicines Act, Health and Safety, yeah.
So I've got here, and this will all be done up in a, um, Emma's going to put it together in a proper, um, you know, properly, professionally done, um, sheet that everybody can look at. What you've got over here is the Health and Safety, um, which one was it? WorkSafe. It's got a link anyway to section, um, 16. Yeah, here it is. Um, section 16 of the COVID-19, um, Public Health Response Act, and it's, um, it's headed something like protection of people, um, going, you know, protection of people who are working under this Act.
And, and it refers you to section 129 of the, um, Health Act 1956. This is when the Health Act started to come on the radar, right? So the Health Act, um, 1956 tells you that you can actually, um, you get protection for your actions under the Health Act, right? Not under COVID-19, not under the COVID-19 Act, but under the Health Act, right? Because that's the only place they could, they, they had legislation that would protect somebody.
But, but whatever people did, um, they were protected except if they were reckless or acted in bad faith. Well, they did both. We know that. So when those letters, because there was two letters in particular that I know went off, um, one was from, um, what was it called? Lone Star, wrote one for them. Oh, more people coming in. Just let them in. Uh, one was for Lone Star and one was for, um, one was for Steve Oliver's gym, okay? So basically they'd already, um, they'd already got Steve after, you know, to get to, um, with a couple of charges.
And, and he spent ages in the courts mucking around with that. But really, um, I mean, we've got the law now that we can just blow them out of the water, which I'll tell you about that in a minute. So we began to develop a bit of traction here, right? So, so then we had the cases, we had the judicial review cases coming up, which seemed to be absolutely useless, right? Um, the ones that involved workers, I believe, and I've always said they were, they were in the wrong, uh, battleground.
They were in the wrong courts. Um, and, and, and that is why they failed, right? Because judicial reviews, um, they get a declaration, but no, um, no, uh, there's no penalties. Um, you really can't, the courts can't even tell them what to do, right? They can recommend stuff, but they can't tell them what, what to do. Whereas in the, um, in the, um, Health and Safety at Work Act, of course, or under the Employment Relations Act, on this battlefield, you can get, uh, you can get them starting to pay money or giving your job back.
So, you know, you really do get action with it, okay? But they wanted to keep us away from the Health and Safety at Work Act as much as possible. They poured cold water on it. They had, the lawyers wouldn't, wouldn't, um, take any cases for people under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The authority was saying we don't, well, we're being told they didn't have jurisdiction by every lawyer in the place. It was just an absolute set-up, absolute set-up against the workers, okay? And the contractors and the businesses, okay? So that all three were in together.
And as you know, as part of the union, we are looking after all of those, all of those areas. Um, so weapons under the, um, Employment Relations Act 2000. What have we got? The most important thing about, um, because I think the Health and Safety at Work Act is a more important act, but to get into the employment institutions, you need to use the Employment Relations Act. Now there's a whole screed of ways, um, that, you know, the union knows how to, how to get your case into there if you're an employee.
We've been fighting arguments about the 90-day rule. We've been fighting arguments about, um, uh, the breach of contract. We've been fighting arguments about the, um, Health and Safety at Work Act. And, and, and there's been slow-down tactics by the authority, by the mediators, et cetera, et cetera. But we're through, we've broken through to the other side. We've got cases, um, in the, um, we've got cases in those, um, in those institutions and we're unstoppable. What's happening mostly now is that businesses, um, and even corporations are settling before we get near to the Employment Relations Authority.
But we've got enough, um, to go on. Okay, um, so what do we look at in the Employment Relations Act? What are the principles in here? The object of the Act, um, section, uh, three, a subsection two, um, inherent, there's an inherent imbalance in the bargaining power. Um, I would say too from experience now there's a terrible imbalance in the, in the money power. Because a lot of people have been kept out, um, not only that sometimes the lawyers wouldn't take the cases, uh, but also when we got the cases started they would try and scare people off by saying we're going to get, you know, you're going to lose and it's going to scare the workers.
And also the authority and the court have both been awarding, um, you know, at a point where, you know, the authority, perhaps you're losing the authority, have to go on to the court. The authority's been awarding, letting the other side take costs. That was pretty much unheard of before all of this arose. The court's been corrupted. But that's okay, um, we're here to get, uh, with our peering knife, uh, to get that corruption cut out, right, uh, because we have the law that we know how to use it and how to sort them as well.
So, um, what else did we have? We have under, um, and this is the object of the Act, so this is the Health, uh, this is the Employment Relations Act, that all of these, um, authority members, the mediators, the employment court judges all have to adhere to and take notice of the individual choice. Now, individual choice is more, was put in there in terms of making sure that everybody didn't have to, it wasn't going to be compulsory unionism.
So there's a good, there's a kind of a balance between, you know, um, supporting the unions and trying to keep them out, you know, you know what I mean? They can't, they haven't quite made up their mind yet, right? Okay. And then we've got, um, under Section 4.1, uh, good faith dealing. So each party has to deal with each other in good faith. Now, if you're in this area, um, and they've done something under the, um, Health and Safety at Work Act, or, um, you know, that, that is, that is unlawful, and we know what they've been doing is all unlawful.
Then, um, in terms of people, and we're not going to be taking the actual, um, physical injury cases, but those cases can then refer back to what was in, uh, the 2020 Act and say, okay, you had to act in good faith under the Health Act 1956, and you didn't act in good faith, right? You, you set us up. Okay. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act now, what I say, um, the sections that we can use are legion.
There are so many. So there's a Section 83 letter, which has got a, um, quite a few different sections in there, uh, Section 28, 29, and 31, which are to do with, um, no contracting out, no being insured for, um, no being insured for, for fines, et cetera, that you might incur from WorkSafe. If WorkSafe won't, uh, and then we've got Section 47, which was a scary one for everybody. Um, if something happens, you know, and this is particularly interesting, I believe, for the people who were injured, they can be fined up to $3 million, okay? Yeah, per case.
Now, that's what should have happened for those, for those workers in the Pike River mine, their families. They should have got $3 million each, and it should have come off the state, because the state had control of the land by the time those cases went to court. But they did a deal, right, and again, took, completely corrupt. Uh, now what else did we get out of the section, uh, out of the Health and Safety at Work Act? We got Section 92.
Now, Section 92 is the coercion, um, is the coercion section, and it, um, it is, um, it really came to our, our notice with Yardley, because Yardley was the first case to talk about coercion. And as I say, even though I say they were in the wrong, they were in the wrong part of the, of the battlefield, um, at least that came out. The other good thing, um, that came out of Yardley was that he talked about, um, that basically, he didn't say what part of Bora it's in, but it's in Section 28 of Bora, the right to have your job, the right not to be deprived of your job without good, well, he didn't say without good reason, but I say without good reason, because I know that, we know that people can be deprived of their jobs if they do something wrong, but you guys were all completely innocent.
The workers, the contractors, the small businesses, they were all completely innocent, right, so they've got no comeback on you. Um, what else did we got? So we got Section 92. Now, Section 92, we've even had trouble with that, getting that through the supposedly thick heads of the lawyers. They're saying, oh no, the Health and Safety at Work Act doesn't apply. No, of course it does, because it's actually referred to in the Health, in the Employment Relations Act, okay.
So we know that we're in the right ballpark, we know that we've got our bat in the ball, we know that we've got our players, we know that we've got the correct referee, we know that what the rules of the game are, right, and we know that we're the winning side, because they're just crooks, and the law was not put up with it. So what else did we get out? We got Section 168, subsection 4, that says, despite 1E, of that Section 168, 1E, the inspector must not require any information that discloses the identity of an individual worker.
Health information, the health status, right, so they were never allowed to disclose their health status, they were never allowed to ask you anything about your health status that they passed on to anybody else, right. So they could have their little registers, but they weren't allowed to show it to anybody, because there was nobody who was allowed to see it. The regulator of anything like that would have been WorkSafe. WorkSafe were also, as the regulator, they were the only ones with any power to actually, let's say, enforce, if you like, the vaccine orders, right, but they couldn't, because they're not allowed to touch the body of a worker, they're not allowed to get any information out about the health status of a worker.
All of those sit over, and all of these things sit over in the Health Act, we're going to go to that in a minute. So what was a big killer punch, and then we started to see how we could get to the very top of this snake and cut its head off, was Section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Now that's a section that brings you over into this side, this public law side, and into what is the relationship of the regulator to the law writers, okay, the people who write this law up called the Parliamentary Council Office, the PCO.
Now Section 191 says that WorkSafe is the regulator, so you'll find a part of the Act that talks about WorkSafe, right, and in that is 191. Now WorkSafe, what I say is Parliament must have decided at some stage that WorkSafe needed sometimes to be able to pass its powers over to somebody else, and that somebody else, of course, has got to be part of the government departments. You just can't send it off to Countdown or McDonald's or anybody like that and say, oh, you do it, right, you do it.
Okay, so they had to have what was called designations, and these designations had to be advertised, or what's called gazetted, in the New Zealand Gazette, and that we've had, you know, I mean, the Zooms about all of these subjects, but I'm just trying to put them together in one, and then provide you with a chart, and then you can go and look at any of them and go back and look at any of them that you want.
We've got a fantastic woman from Australia who's doing a great system that will basically, you'll be able to look at any of, go through all of the Zooms that have been recorded and are up on Rumble, and you'll be able to go to the part and make a reference of where, you know, what Act you want to look at, what subject you want to look at, and all of the, you know, if I might say, oh, it's some sort of Act, and it's something like this, she's even gone and researched them and found those.
So our Aussie cousins. Okay, what have we got on the public law side? We've got New Zealand Borer, okay, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 11, everybody's really familiar with that. Section 11 was the subject, pretty much, of all of the judicial reviews. Section 15 came up also, which was the part of the Bill of Rights Act that says that you can manifest your religion. Why it wasn't put forward under Section 13 is a great puzzle, that religious exemption one, because they wouldn't have been able to do their stupid so-called balancing Act with Section 5 with Section 13.
Those two don't go together. But I say, and I've said before, all of the Bill of Rights stuff, we should win everything, and they should have won all of those cases, because you can't balance what's called a, I think the government are calling it now a public health interest against an individual interest under the Bill of Rights Act. The Bill of Rights Act is concerned with individual rights, not with group rights, none at all, okay. If you look at any section of the Bill of Rights, you'll see it's everybody, every person, no one, etc., etc.
That's how each of those sections start. There's nothing about groups in there, okay. But everybody got into some sort of hive mind and started to believe, suddenly lawyers started to believe that there were group rights. It had been eroded a little bit before, I think, with the, not the 1080. 1080 is another one, of course. That can be, we can go after them on using the Bill of Rights now that we've realised that we can bomb them into smithereens with our argument about no group rights.
The fluoride case, right. The fluoride case where they said, you know, you can put fluoride in the water. South Taranaki District Council could put fluoride in the water. That was a wrongly decided case and that was the Supreme Court of New Zealand. You know, man oh man, if we got a clean up job, never mind, we start with the worker. Because they attacked us first, so, you know, we'll get back at them. So, Bill of Rights Act.
The Bill of Rights Act is said not to be able to be called upon by people who are not working in the public service or for a DHB, etc. That is incorrect. Because it's able to be called into use in any case where the law is broken in some other sense, under another Act, and it's your fundamental and it's your rights under the Bill of Rights Act that are affected. Okay. So, you can pull the Bill of Rights into it.
Now, in Erica's case, we're going to be appealing that and talking about, of course, how the Bill of Rights can be applied in any situation, whether you're at work, whether you're at home, whether you're flying or sailing or anywhere, anywhere, okay, within the territory of New Zealand, you can bring the Bill of Rights into your service, right? It's just you've got to go through it with another Act. You've got the doorway is a little bit occluded, but that's okay.
The Health Act 1956, this, it should be called the Public Health Act 1956 because it's all to do with public health. You will find in the Public Health Act that it's all about the individual, again, right? And the most important thing we found in the Bill of Rights Act, sorry, the Health Act 1956, in my view, was section 92i5, which in no case was a person to be vaccinated without their informed consent, right? Without their consent, never mind informed consent.
That's right. It was just without consent. 92c, these are the principles, respect for the individual, and 92d, voluntary compliance in every case, okay? And it's nothing to do with groups, right? And everything under the Health Act is in terms of this in part three, I think it is, and about infectious diseases or notifiable diseases. It's all about the individual, all about that. The Medicines Act is the other Act that you'll be hearing me talk about a lot.
The Medicines Act is, oh, and I've got to put something else in there too. The Medicines Act 1981, remember that was the Act under which the approval for the sponsor, the sponsor of it was Pfizer, they're called the sponsor, and they got it under section 23 of the Medicines Act, and that's a provisional one, right? But if you'd gone back a couple of sections and looked at section 23, you'd see, oh sorry, section 20, subsection 3, you'll see that there was no warranty that new medicines, which of course the Pfizer one was, have got a warranty of safe and effective.
But all of these sections, they're not very big and complicated, they're pretty straightforward, there's no, and I love that because there's no outs for clever lawyers to, you know, to slip and slide around, although I don't think we've got many clever ones. Section 30 of the Medicines Act might be something to watch out for in the future. Apparently these bivalent vaccines that they've got are what's called off-label, they must come under section 30, I believe, and section 30 is trials, okay? So they have to say who they're going to give them to, and of course the informed consent is just like any other medical trial, right? So I believe that everybody should make, start making a noise about section 30, whoops, we've got somebody else come in, about section 30 of the Medicines Act, 1981, and that is what these bivalent vaccinations should have to come under, okay? So not just shoving them, you know, into people.
Medicines, now under each of these acts are what's called regulations made, okay? The Medicine Regulations 1984 are very interesting because in Clause 44A, that's the capital A of the Medicines Regulations 1984, especially sub-clause 2, we're looking at the training and the authorisations that are required for someone to give vaccines in a, you know, like what happened, right? In a vaccine where a whole lot of people are getting vaccinated. They needed authorisations from the, you know, Attorney General, not the Attorney General, the, what Bloomfield was, okay? So he's got a lot of answering to do because he was the one who didn't get the WorkSafe authorisation, he was never presented as somebody with that sort of authorisation, and he didn't give any authorisations to anybody else either, okay? One of the other things, and I've just made a couple, I think I've just about covered everything.
I talked about how the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act Section 16 works to supposedly cover these people, which it's not going to do, and one of the other things, I mean there's tons of stuff when I look back that I haven't covered, but that's pretty much, you know, giving you, and I think this is probably enough for you anyway for tonight. Yeah, we're already three quarters of an hour of me talking about the law, but yeah, this is going to be reproduced in a really readable style.
Emma's going to work on that over the weekend, so by next week we should have it all ready for you, and we'll put it up on our website so you can all see and, you know, and get stuck in, because it is a battlefield and we intend to win this battle hands down. As I started off saying, a battlefield, for what reason? For the reason of treason. I didn't mean to make it rhyme, but there it did, okay? The reason was treason.
It was always that way. The reason was the WEF. The reason was the World Health Organization. The reason was Five Eyes. The reason was etc, etc, etc. Of course, we're part of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth nations all have the same, and the banksters, you're right, Jeff, all have the same legal system. They can all use their, they'll all have the same sort of acts to Parliament that they can use, okay? Parliament itself, of course, under the Bill of Rights Act is also able to be tried for treason, and there's going to be some exciting revelations in the next few weeks, I think.
Other things are starting to pop up that, you know, I've been wondering when it was going to be exposed, and we're pretty much getting there. I'll just say something about Liz Gunn. Liz is, today's Wednesday, isn't it? Tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, her and, she, sorry, she and her cameraman, Jonathan, are appearing at the Manukau District Court, okay, because they were supposed to be resisting arrest or some rubbish out at Auckland Airport a couple of weeks ago.
So there, if anybody is in Auckland or South Auckland, if you could get out there, the courts are open, no one can stop you going in, and she, you know, she supported us, time for us to support her. She was out there to film the homecoming of the people from, well, not homecoming, but the coming to New Zealand of the people from Tuvalu who had been put under house arrest for over a year by, pretty much, you know, he'll back off and say it wasn't me, but it was Jacinda Ardern's father, Ross Ardern, while he was commissioner there.
So, you know, what a tangled web. Emma and I talked about what we're going to call this tonight, and we started talking about the treason that had gone on at the time of, in the English Civil War, and before then we talked, because she mentioned the movie that Geoff had recommended a few weeks ago about, it's called The Gunpowder Plot, and she said, oh, I sort of didn't quite get what was, you know, who was who in it, and I said, well, it's always the crown, okay, it's always the crown.
Someone's always trying to, you know, the crown is always trying to get at somebody to maintain their power, and this is why we need to get rid of the crown, every crown, every crown on earth we need to be rid of. They are nothing but trouble, always, always, always. We don't need a crown, we don't need an executive, we don't need political parties, we can have representatives of our, to come before, to speak for us in a forum, but we do not need, um, we do not need that beehive or wasp's nest anymore, okay.
We've got a house of representatives, but those representatives need to be independent, in my view. I'm not, and this is why, you know, political parties and politics have ruined this country and corrupted it. They're nothing but evil words. So, I'll leave it there, and I hope nobody's um, going to be standing for political office. So, I'll, uh, if you want to unmute yourselves, I believe you can, and, um, we can have a chat, and ah, Jeff's unmuted himself.
Hi, Jeff. I hadn't unmuted myself, I just put my hand up to be polite and let everybody know that I am wide awake and paying attention. Um, okay, you all know my, one of my little hobby horses is the banksters, and I think they are as treasonous as you can find. Well, what I'd like to ask tonight is to find out how many members we might have up in the far north, because we are now endeavoring seriously to resurrect our local currency up here, and we are going to have it backed.
We're looking at finding and using possibly honey, milk, fuel, wine, and anything else that folks can think of, which is produced locally, that we can use to back a currency. As you probably know, the ruble is now backed by gold, and the Brits people are looking at using, I think, up to 20 different commodities to back a currency there. We've got an idea how to make it work, and I had quite an interest in meeting with a large local honey producer this afternoon, and they are on to it as far as the banksters go, and working locally, and so on, so they may well be a start.
So, as I say, if we can put the word out for, we need to find some dairy farmers who do year-round production. Apparently, if you do export milk and town milk, you produce year-round, but if you just do one or the other, you don't. So, we need 12-month availability, and wine and all that kind of stuff would work, and as I say, if anybody's got other ideas as to what we might use, they are more than welcome to put them forward.
But I honestly do believe that this is a way forward, and as you all know, the New Zealand dollar and all the rest of the fiat currencies, they are backed by thin air, and that's it. So, when the banks do go kaplunk, as is starting now with that Silicon Valley and Signature, apparently UBS has taken over Credit Swiss because they were going down the gurgler. So, there are some major things happening out there, and having the local currency that's backed by commodities will do several things.
One, it gives people security that if the New Zealand dollar goes down the spout, as it will, they have something tangible, instead of just a piece of paper or digits. The other thing is, of course, if we can provide a currency that is backed by something, and people can see that it is, and it's more secure than the New Zealand dollar, that is an incentive to get your money out of the bank. And the sooner people get their money out of the bank, the sooner we starve the beast and get rid of it.
So, there you go. Thank you, Jeff. Thanks for that. Okay. Right. Anybody else? Liz, any more information on the UN soldiers that were lost? Beg your pardon? Any more information on the UN soldiers that were lost? No, not at all. But, of course, what's happening with the Amanda Turner case is that the fact that they were allowing the Afghans and the Ukrainians in without getting backs, we've managed to knit that into the narrative, right, and put those documents before the court.
And it'll be the Employment Court. We don't have to deal with the authority again. And, of course, I believe that in the next few weeks, Liz is going to do an interview about that case, right? We don't have to keep anything quiet. It's not secret secret. That case was never—nobody applied for, you know, to have their name suppressed. And, you know, Amanda had to suffer a lot, but she'll be vindicated in the end because by keeping it out in the open, it can come up for people's information now because everybody needs to find out the terrorism, the real terrorism that's going on in this country.
And they've been shielded from it. The security services, you might remember at the time, yes, there's tunnels under the Beehive, the net. They have a secret court down there, apparently, under the four floors under. The security services said at the time of the investigation into the mosque shootings that they'd been watching all of the other terrorist groups, and it was sort of painted as, oh, how racist, you know. Nice little ISIS, nice little Taliban, you know, we even give our taxpayer money to them.
Well, the courts are going to have to read it, exactly the sort of people that the security services have been working on and have designated as terrorist groups. Taran was also designated as a single terrorist. And I don't know if any of you follow American politics at all. The Proud Boys were designated because they've got some sort of ideas about they don't like transgenders and they think mothers should be given a chance to stay at home with their children if they want to.
And yeah, terrible stuff. And Christians, you know, praying and stuff like that, which is not allowed. So they're a terrorist group according to our security services, right. At the time of the January 6th so-called insurrection at the White House, what was it, the House of Representatives? Capitol Building. That's when they all got designated in New Zealand as terrorist groups. They're designated as terrorist groups in the United States, too. Possibly a lot of people in the United States don't know it, like we didn't know who the hell was supposed to be terrorists in our country.
Okay. So Dave, is that kind of giving you some sort of answer? What did you have in mind? Oh, I just got an update the other day. The S Valley River had a secret dam, not showing on Google. Ben Fulford alluded to two weeks ago, S Valley was the secret UN base hiding the entrance to underground facilities where those cops in Wellington during the riots with no policing signal were based in a deep state dam facility.
Okay. Do you want me to carry on? Yes, please. Because, yes, I saw Dana doing some report. But yeah, it's not showing on Google Earth. Ben Fulford also mentioned New Zealand's being cleansed, hence Jacinda's sudden resignation. And this week, Stuart Nash, police minister, resigned before being fired by Hipkins. Third of national, this is very important, listen to this, a third of National Party and 14 Labour Party members are currently in COVID lockdown under Q Force's arrest.
Really? The secret hydro dam was feeding the water and power supply to the underground base. And why those two Maori investigators got rudely exported out of the area by hydro dam security, who have no authority to do so. Now, I don't know how true this is, but that's what a report that came through. Well, Ben, what's his name? He's in the States, isn't he? And the other thing, there were 13 rubber duckies on the Bayview Beach, looking all in line, looking for bodies.
And you saw that on the film. Yeah. So I think all the dots join up. They do. They absolutely do. Yeah, no, I saw Dana is one of the roving reporters for Counterspin Media. And she had a camera person with her. So I guess those are the two people that you're speaking about, who got exported off. I saw that. Yeah. There was an explosion at four o'clock in the morning, too, before the water came down. Oh, yes.
Oh, I see. There's another dot to join up. I don't know how true it is. It's just, you know, you can't believe everything you get. Well, I'll tell you what, truth is stranger than fiction in the end, eh? It really is. Very, very. Who would have believed? Oh, somebody's put a link up. Who put that up for us? Probably Jeff. Put that up. Yeah, that was the Mokomoko Road. OK. Tūtira. Oh, Tūtira was, you remember Tūtira was the place where they did all of the big, they did their, oh, look at the New Zealand Army, aren't we good, going up and and delivering these supplies, you know, to Tūtira and clearing the road to Tūtira.
There was a death, two deaths up there. They were next to, the house was at the bottom of a small mountain, and the side of the mountain slipped down. The guy lost his wife and his stepdaughter, and the police turned up and wouldn't let them get her out, kept the body for days and days, wouldn't let them be together. It was terrible, absolutely terrible. We saw that on interview. But yeah, they're wanting to hide stuff up there.
Absolutely. Yeah, but I think that once the New Zealand police find it, you know, that there was no authority in the police minister, or in the, in, what's his name, Short, who's the defence force, New Zealand Defence Force, you know, head of. Once they find out that they'd been vaxxed without legal permission, that they could, you know, legally they couldn't, they, it was, it was never going to be correct. We could see that, you know, quite a few of them saying, you know, we're putting our hand up, we're telling people what's going on.
Because they're so keen on their commands, and when they find out that they've been lied to, that they were never, you know, they were never, it should have never happened. Pretty shocking. So yeah, we've got, we're coming to a very big fork in the road. I see Lynette's got up her hand there. Lynette, do you want to say something? Yeah, hi Liz. And tonight's news was about this Afghanistan, I mean, this Kiwi guy that went to Afghanistan, and he's one who's been reported killed.
So, and interesting enough, I don't know when it was, because I don't watch it, but before he left, Sunday interviewed him, and he was sitting there saying, oh, he's got a 12-year-old daughter, and if he doesn't come back, well, he doesn't come back. And tonight, they're saying that he was sharing his post while he was there. So what was he doing in Afghanistan? He went to Afghanistan to, Ukraine to fight, sorry. Oh, Ukraine to fight. He went to Ukraine to fight.
No, okay. And apparently he's been killed, but how interesting. Well, they had a whole lot of Ukrainians over here, why can't they stay over there and fight? Yeah, but he's been killed, but why would you be doing an interview with Sunday before you leave to go? And now... Probably not been killed then. Of course not. Just thought that was, you know, interest to this area. Yeah. Yeah, the media have got a lot of, you know, pulled up about absolutely lying sods.
Money too, full money. Of course it is. So when that came on, because I've been trying to watch them, because I'm saying, nah, you are telling a little bit of truth, you morons. And then after that, I just, oh, I went to Eden. I thought, nah, I can't be watching your bullshit. Oh, good lord. Oh, well, you've got somebody in the waiting room. Who's that? Oh, okay. So I'll just go now. Okay. Nice to hear from you, Lynette.
You too. Okay. Okay, Carl wanted to say something. Yeah, I just wanted to mention what Jeff's saying about starting up their own currency again, reviving it. And he mentioned the milk. And the thing I see with that is that the government and that are trying to bring in so that the farmers have to vaccinate their stock, which could be a problem if they do that. Yeah. Yeah, well, the farmers need to stand up, don't they? The farmers have had plenty of information that they can turn their, you know, they can just turn their farms into a low deal and tell them to butt out.
There's something interesting about the Rating Act, actually, seeing we're going on to a bit of stuff about land, etc. You know, I think I read out, I think it was on here, we had a talk about a low deal. And there's no, even though there's a part of the Local Government Act that says that they're required to tell you why you should be, you should have to pay the council rates. I went looking for the actual piece of, on the prompting of my friend in England about where is it in the Act that, you know, it says, that they've got the authority, because now we're looking for their authority all of the time.
This is what we've got to get into our heads. You know, the laws are there for us, they're our weapons. Basically, we're going looking for our weapons all of the time. So, there's the Rating Act 1988. Now, if you go to the Rating Act 1988 and look in the Interpretation section, you'll see the word, you'll see Owner. And the Owner is the person who can charge, who may be in a position to charge a REC rent.
A REC rent. Okay. You are not, you were a tenant of the Crown. Right. Now, here's the other thing. Your house doesn't even belong to you, according to the law. So, you, if you, that, because, and this is going, looking at the English law. Right. They are talking about what's called heritaments can be rated. Right. Heritaments in a certain area can be rated by that area. Now, heritaments means something that's inherited. And that inherited can be land or what can be called real heritaments, which is land or corporal, sorry, corporal, which is land or incorporal, which is money and other things, rents, etc.
Okay. So, heritaments means something that's inherited. Now, who were they inherited by? They were inherited not by you. They were inherited by, first, they came down in the feudal system from William I. And his line goes down until it gets to 1649. And then Charles I is gone. They lost the heritaments. There's no, there should be no council tax in England. And this is what my friend in England and I are working on for them. But in New Zealand, even the Law Society, well, not the Law Society, the Law Commission said back in 1972 in the textbook that they put out, and I discussed it on one of the Zooms, that even though New Zealanders might have been comfortable thinking, oh, I've paid off, you know, I've worked hard and I've paid off my mortgage, etc.
It never belongs to them. Right? Never belongs to them. And that we should have, and they were recommending at that stage, some bright spot they'd probably killed off actually, was saying, oh, we should go to an, did he call it an allodial system? A system, a full ownership system anyway. Okay. So, that is the legal position. So, according to them, you know, you've already had nothing, and you've been moderately happy, but now they're going to make sure that you'd have no illusions about the fact that you have nothing, and you'll be even happier.
So, there we are. But it's, yeah, truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure. Okay. So, with any bugs, says Lynette. Yeah. And, oh, I saw a really nasty, I saw a really nasty video of, they had a, was it a grasshopper or something, that they were taking the, what do you call this out of it? It was in China, I think. They had the grasshopper by the head with the tweezers, and they opened up its abdomen, and there was all these, what do they call, horse hair, sort of, what do they call them, parasites.
And the thing died after a long time, the poor grasshopper died, but they put it out onto this piece of tissue, and you could see these things all crawling around. So, this is what they're really wanting to, you know, these are the crazies. Yeah. No, it wasn't horse hair, it was, what do they, what they call horse hair parasites, Shirley. Yeah. Yeah. Pretty ugly, pretty horrid, but it's all right, guys, we're, we've, we've got the, we've got the Lord on our side, and he's not going to let hair be hurt on your heads.
So, stay with it. Okay. Well, I might, I might actually say good night, because it's now, what time, just after eight o'clock, so I think we try and keep it down to an hour. And you guys have got a lot to think about, if you've been making notes, and as I say, by next Wednesday, we should have the whole mind map done up. Joanne said, Tellinger, what's that guy, check out YouTube of Michael Tellinger and Scott Tundall, The Story of the Banks and the Great Global Banking Scam.
Yeah. Yes, we all need about five years to just read in the next, the next few days, don't we? If we could lengthen time, make it just for now. But anyway, I'll say good night, and I'll stop the recording, and farewell, and see you on Friday. Okay. Good night. Good night. Night. See ya.
