Details
29th March 2023 - Review of the Battlefield Join us for this super insightful deep dive into the amazing lawful and legal discoveries that Liz has made over the last 6 months. The rest of the world needs to follow Liz and N8's lead! We are uncovering exactly where they who think they are in charge, the De-Elites, have broken every law in the book pretty much!! Smoke and mirrors big time! Nothing in the C19 legislation has followed legal or lawful process at all!
Comment
29th March 2023 - Review of the Battlefield Join us for this super insightful deep dive into the amazing lawful and legal discoveries that Liz has made over the last 6 months. The rest of the world needs to follow Liz and N8's lead! We are uncovering exactly where they who think they are in charge, the De-Elites, have broken every law in the book pretty much!! Smoke and mirrors big time! Nothing in the C19 legislation has followed legal or lawful process at all!
Listen to N8WUNZ 20230329 (W) Review of the Battlefield by N8WUNZ MP3 song. N8WUNZ 20230329 (W) Review of the Battlefield song from N8WUNZ is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 01:59:21. This high-quality MP3 track has 512 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 7 May 2023. Stream and download N8WUNZ 20230329 (W) Review of the Battlefield by N8WUNZ for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
The main ideas from this information are: - The RICO Act is primarily focused on anti-money laundering rather than anti-trafficking. - Political parties in New Zealand are disciplined by the chief whip, who enforces voting along party lines. - The executive, including the prime minister and cabinet, is not elected by the public but by the party itself. - The idea of making individual politicians responsible rather than political parties is suggested to improve accountability. - The treaty between the British Empire and Māori in New Zealand was not a partnership in ruling but a means to prevent Māori attacks on settlers. - The idea of a living document for the treaty is questioned as it was signed in Māori, which is not a legal language. - The need for more transparency and accountability in elections is discussed, including the use of paper ballots and scrutiny of votes. - The ongoing battle against corruption, employment law issues, and attempts to push certain agendas in schools is Yeah, I'll just go quickly start Facebook, and then we'll be... Yeah, we can sort of go over them again if you like, Michael. Yeah, sure. Good questions. Good evening, everybody. We've got some good questions coming up already. Love it. It's a different start to the evening, isn't it, to have questions first? Yeah, sorry, I didn't want to hijack the show. No, you've done well. My first question was the RICO Act. Right. There's been talk of trying to use the RICO Act, or RICO law. Yeah. Yeah, well, the thing is that RICO law is anti... It's not so much anti-trafficking as anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. It's anti-money laundering. The problem with political parties is that you can't, you know, you can't really do anything about them except vote them in or out, and that's only every three years. Their discipline is provided by, to get to in terms of their vote on various acts, it's provided by the chief whip, who basically gets them to vote the party line. So if you see a politician who's promised one thing and does something the complete opposite, it's because they're being whipped. It's called whipped. Okay? Now the other thing is that they have, they, and that's why I say the executive, which is the prime minister and cabinet, is not an elected representative, and they are not elected representatives in their status as part of the executive, because they are voted for only by the party itself, and in actual fact, the parliamentary part of the party is the one that actually votes, you know, for the prime minister, who's going to be minister of that. I mean, the prime minister has the most power and gets to appoint people, and that's kind of the discipline that they have there. But in terms of what the people can do about politicians, I've said for a while now that political parties need to be outlawed, that the only way we can get a real handle on them in terms of politically is to make them individually responsible, so that they come in, they get an electorate vote, so they have to front up to the people in the electorate and tell them what their plans are for that electorate. And then, so you don't, you know, you don't have, basically, get rid of the executive in terms of the prime minister and ministers, because they are part of the executive, which is part of the crown. So the crown needs to go. Because they're not public servants. No, no, no. They call themselves that, but the only way, really, they can be kept in line is to treat them like public servants. So the people of the electorate can't get together and have them removed? No. Even though they put them in power? Yep, that's correct. That just seems such an oxymoron that it's crazy. Yeah, well, they have this for, in the American system, they have what's called recall. So I think it's every two years they have a sort of a turnover of different states, you know, so they, and you might, if you follow American politics, you'll see, say, the, you know, this one or that one is going to be recalled, right? Yep. And then you've got to have a certain percentage of your electorate to recall that person, and then you have another election, right? Yeah. We definitely need something like that in the new Constitution, where you get 80% of your electorate or something once you're gone, and it's a new vote. Yeah, but we need to get rid of political parties, because that's, often, their bad behaviour is to do with the fact that they're being whipped. Yeah. They're being whipped as in party whips. So you've got a party whip for National, you've got a party whip for Labour, you've got a party whip for, I suppose, every political party has a party whip, because it's, they say, well, this is what you vote on this subject or that subject. So the two things, the fact that an electorate MP and a party system do not go together. Yeah. They're, you know, they're incompatible. When did the party system come into New Zealand? I mean, we didn't always have it, did we? No, we got, I think there was a Reform Party. It might have been a Reform Party, I think, might have been the first. It starts back in the, but they weren't pretty much people, well, of course, the party list is the absolute worst thing that you can have. You get God knows what from God knows where. And absolutely no accountability whatsoever. Yeah, it's just someone sitting on the party list, the Prime Minister. Haven't we got some gay Mexican? And we've got some... And we have the Chinese spy as well. We've got the Chinese spy, we've got the bloody, what was that other woman? Was it a woman or a man? I'm just trying to think. Oh, it's that one, Gil Ramsey, or whatever she's called. She's the, she's the, she's the Muslim one, is it? She's the party list one too. I see someone asked a question about how do we stop fraud in our elections? Is there a, I thought representatives from each party were present at voting and they were looking... Yeah, you've got scrutineers, you've got scrutineers, but you've also got a manager of the polling booth that then inputs the numbers into a computer. Right. But you've got, and the other thing that they would say, yeah, Green Party, Lamit, I think you're right. Fancy that. From Iran, is she? Yeah, I think she's from Iran, yeah. And walking around with the Palestinian liberation stuff on and all of this carry on. And, yeah, sorry, what was your... Oh, someone was asking about scrutineer votes and that. Oh, scrutineering, yeah, yeah, scrutineering. Yeah, but then it goes into a computer and that's where you can have it hijacked, right? Best to have, and I think they're talking about doing it in the States, all you need to do is make more polling booths and you have it all paper and you keep it, you keep that paper. They destroyed the paper vote recently. That paper vote is what, because I've actually been involved in a vote recount back in, oh, gosh, a long time ago now when I was just standing for Waiheke Community Board, but I'd just started in law school and I was kind of interested because I was doing political studies as well. And the vote was drawn. And so then you have a recount in front of a judge, right, and you actually have the paper votes there and they look at the ones that are a little bit, oh, are they right or are they wrong, you know, in terms of have they picked this one or is it unclear, is it a spoiled vote, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, so, yeah, and all of the special voting that goes on and, you know, and, yeah, it's very messy. Now, I was a voting clerk about, oh, seven years ago, or it must have been, yeah, about seven years ago. Back in Huntly I did that. But, yeah, I've been a scrutineer as well. But, yes, the scrutineering is interesting because, and people have got to take a lot more notice of what goes on on polling day. Make sure that our voting, you know, you're not supposed to actually be a clerk if you've got, not a clerk, what do they call them, an electoral officer, if you're a party member of any party. Okay, you're not, when you apply, you're not supposed to be a party member. So, I had been a Labour Party member years ago, but I wasn't at the time. So, that was okay. And, you know, you've got to, you're supposed to be a good character and, you know, be able to do the job and stuff like that. But, yeah, we could clean up this country because it's small enough. It really is. Was there another question that you had, Michael? We talked about the RICO. We talked about what the hell you do about the politicians. Oh, it was just a question whether the Green Party leader, Ian Nash, had broken a trust with the people and if we could go something along those lines. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, I was saying this is, you know, the thing is, these things about breach of trust, et cetera, or breach of contract, some people might like to see it as a breach of contract, always have to be you in particular, you know. So, it's you suing them in particular. Yeah, this is kind of, you don't get, you know, we're not all signing on, on the line. You know, it's a theoretical idea that there is these, yeah, I mean, in principle, yeah, they break, breach their trust. But you see what mess you get into with all of that. This is what all of this principles of the treaty bullshit is about. Right? The treaty is pretty clear. Māori ceded sovereignty. They got the law in return, which protected their private property. Okay? It wasn't a partnership in ruling with the British Empire. And that was recognized right up until about 1975, when they decided, oh, we'll start, you know, with all this stuff going to the courts, oh, we, you know, we didn't really, we didn't really, you know, this was Matarata. We didn't, we didn't sign off that or anything like that. But the ridiculous thing is that if you didn't, what are you doing with the Waitangi Tribunal where it's constituted under English common law? Yeah. Hello? Because the other thing they're trying to say is that the Māori version of the treaty is what counts. But Māori isn't a legal language. It was always, it was translated into Māori. That's what they signed. They didn't sign an English version of the treaty. It was all in Māori. Yeah, but as you pointed out, the legal, all legal stuff is written in English. Well, but the treaty they signed was written in Māori. It was a translation of the English, right? It's not a living document. It's a document that was signed ages ago, Lynette. So the other thing is, well... The living document is something like your employment agreement, OK? Because the two parties are still alive and kicking. A living document is maybe, you know, your marriage agreement, right? And then you've got, you can break up the, it all turns to custody. Who's got custody? Who's got custody of the dog and the TV set, etc, etc? That's a living document. There's a whole lot of bullshit talked about the treaty. It was a document that was signed about, basically, from the British point of view, so that Māori wouldn't attack settlers who came here and, you know, and that's what is the right of buying land in there, right? A preemption right, OK? So they bought land, and then they brought the settlers out. And then it was, some people said, well, we didn't sell that land. But was it, the person who sold it, I mean, what's the one? Waitara. The Waitara. It all kicked off there for the people in Taranaki, because somebody who wasn't supposed to be selling land sold it. And then when the surveyors came to survey it, so people could come and live on it, settlers could come and live on it, Māori went and pulled out all of the pigs, you know, because they said, we didn't sell it. Right? The thing is they weren't using it at the time either, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to put the pigs in. Exactly. But, you know, I'll tell you what, the chiefs were bloody, excuse my language, I'm getting really bad. The chiefs were pretty careless about selling land. Right? Because they often sold land that they'd had conquest over, that they'd won in battles, and then they'd sent, they'd either killed or sent the people who lived there away as slaves. So when the treaty was signed and you got English common law, the slavery was finished for Māori. Māori should be celebrating the 6th of February as their Emancipation Day. Okay, so, yeah, how do we get on to all of this? From a few simple questions. Sorry, my fault. Michael, Michael, haven't you been told about eating your dinner? You let Michael, you let Michael do it. Sorry, I'll turn the camera off, how's that? Yeah, you'd better. Yes, Jeff. Poor old Jeff, get round it. Okay, so, yeah, Alisha's got a good little book by Aparananaata, about Sir Aparananaata, yeah, and he was a very clever man. That would be interesting. Yes, yes, because it's written before they started to redesign the history. It used to be on one of the, one of the, one of the, one pound note, I think. Okay, guys, we're going to talk tonight about, have you managed to get that, yep, what I'm calling the battlefield document? Because I talked about it last Wednesday. And unfortunately, guys, I was moving house and forgot to send the, scanned it at the last minute before I left Waiheke, forgot to send it to Emma, so it's still in sort of a written, you know, in my scribble. But I'd like to just sort of review it a little bit for you, and Emma's going to kindly put it into a more readable form. Now, hopefully, hopefully you can see that. Oh, here we go. How about that? Here we are. One too many. I know that bit. Yeah, here we are. I'll just make that smaller so I can have a look. Okay, well, we talked about this last Wednesday, and I don't know if many of you were here last Wednesday. But, you know, the idea that we're in a battlefield, I think, is very apt to describe what's going on. And it certainly is far from over. I mean, I'm looking at postings about what happened up at Albert Park. I'm looking at postings of what they're trying to push into the schools. I'm looking at corruption amongst politicians. I'm looking at the fact that we're still fighting these employment law situations. Right? Those are still ongoing, of course, and we're winning. But they have, you know, first shots across the bow, really, was to see how much power could be gained by the executive. The executive meaning the Crown, the Governor-General, and the Prime Minister in Cabinet. Okay? And the public service itself. Right? So that's all the executive. So they make all of their stuff is what's called, that they initiate and orders and regulations. They're all what's called secondary legislation. But they have, because of political parties, they've captured the parliamentary members, our so-called representatives, and they're running the show. Okay? So that's who we're fighting, and we're fighting them with the English common law system, which is adversarial. And it stretches across all of the Commonwealth. I had a very interesting, there's a battle going on in Thetford in the UK at the moment, about the 15-minute cities. Right? Now, the guy who's been interviewed about them is a former policeman, but he left the force, and I don't know how long he's been gone. But he's a barber now. Right? And during the lockdowns, they didn't send WorkSafe around. They sent their public health people around. Right? What do they call them? Occupational health. What do they call it? Where you come around and you check and see if the, you know, if the food's safe to sell and things like that. What do they call them, people? Yeah. Health inspectors. Yeah, health inspectors. Right? So they were sending them around to give barbers a hard time, just like the WorkSafe were doing here. So it's interesting that the English didn't pick up on the American case. It said it's not a health and safety matter. Right? So maybe if they'd sent the public health people around, apparently this guy backed off, because the health inspector backed off after this guy. His name's John Bull. His name's Mike Bull. And he's really good to listen to. But, yeah, they have all the same issues as us. This is lockstep all across the Commonwealth, and this is basically what every country should be doing. Right? What we're doing. So we've got a lot of allies all over the world, and our Australian ones are closest to us, of course, and helping out immensely. Both Ness and also we're in agreement with the Project TALS, and the person who's helping out a lot with the admin there, basically running the admin, is an Australian as well. So there we go. We're all working together. So if we can move it up a bit. What I did with this legal battlefield was I divided it into two. Well, it's not two halves. It's two-thirds and one-third, and talked about on this side you've got health and safety at work law and the various statutes that cross over. For example, human rights law under the Human Rights Act, and, of course, you've got employment law, sorry, and you've got employment law. What else did we have? Human Rights Act. Sometimes the Privacy Act if you're working in the public sector. Okay, so our earliest weapon was Section 83, which you should all be familiar with. The battlefield itself, the physical battlefield, is the authority in the Employment Court and MB. MB is where the mediations occur. Unfortunately, it's part of the ERA, which is the Act that we work under when we're talking about employment law. It always has to go to MB or some sort of form of mediation before you can get it into the authority. There's been a lot of pushback from the legal profession, from the authority itself, I would even hesitate to guess, and the court has said they're very keen to hear any of these, and when they have gone to the court, yeah, there is action happening, but it's a very, you know, we've been going through the authority. First, it's cheaper. Second, we've had to upskill ourselves immensely. None of us had been near the Employment Court before. The Employment Relations Authority itself is not easy, but those are what we're using. So we start off with Section 83 letter, which included references to the scope of an employer or head contractor's scope of action under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and remember that they basically, the PCVU, their field of action is to keep the workplace safe, keeping the workplace safe for the worker, but their health, actually, apart from mental health, if you like, or if you're working in a, and I'm talking about illness, for example, unless they're working in a place that has got an industrial disease, say they're working with fiberglass or asbestos or gaseous paints or in a mine or under the sea, you know, something like that, where you can get the bends. Pretty much illnesses don't come under the, aren't, what would you call them, workplace hazards, right, unless it's part of the nature of the work, and that's why I was always saying, look, COVID-19 is not a workplace hazard, and I was following the Supreme Court of the United States in that opinion. Well, I was saying it before them, actually, but that was one of the things they talked about, and, of course, our stupid people in New Zealand were saying, oh, that's American law. Of course it's not American law. The bodies of American workers are the same. They have the same health and safety at work people that they call OSH. They're called OSHA agents, okay. So then we had, I've described them because we're on a battlefield, we're on a battlefield as works sorties, where an attack is made by troops coming out of a defensive position, a position of defense. So we were being attacked in the workplace, and we attacked back, basically. WorkSafe, Chris Lind and his safety data sheet, we used that. We had the letter to WorkSafe that linked it to the Health Act 1956 that said your protection from liability lies under the Health Act 1956. It's because it's become part of the 2020 Act. I think it's section 16. What else did we have? We had the cases, especially Yardley, where we talked about coercion and your rights under Section 97 of the Health and Safety at Work Act so you can include it as part of your PG. We had a lot of pushback, as I say, from the lawyers for the other side saying no, Health and Safety at Work Act doesn't apply. They even had the ball to say to the authority, you don't have jurisdiction, which of course is total rubbish. Then we had the weapons under the Employment Relations Act, especially sections 3A, subsection 2. That is an inherent balance in bargaining power, and we're going to be arguing there's a great imbalance in the costs and resources that it takes to bring these cases before the authority and on to the court. The lawyers have been trying their best to pull us up that way. The courts and the authorities should bring them in to heal. It is totally unacceptable. They wouldn't have their jobs, basically, if it weren't for the Employment Relations Act. They might as well hang up their wigs or whatever if they're not going to do this because we've got to have justice. Because you remember that workers were attacked. They hadn't done anything that would have caused them to be stabbed. And you have to have, I think it's section 103, capital A, it explains that in an employment relations setting, to lose your job, you actually have to have done something wrong. The other thing is that you can sometimes be made redundant, but that's a whole different ballgame. People weren't made redundant because of this. They were told, get the jab or lose your job. So it was a blatant attack by the employer on the employee. And it should have been the fact that the authorities were saying, oh, but they were allowed to because of the order, should have rung a bell with them straight away that, hang on, how is it that you can suddenly have the bosses allowed to do such a thing? Now, remember we talked about exemptions a whole lot. We had the 7A exemption, which was the one that the worker could go and get themselves off their doctor, which they pulled the plug on that as soon as they saw people were actually going to use it. But then there was a whole lot of other exemptions, 9A, I think, 10, 12, and they were exercised by the CEOs. So what's his name? Bloomfield exercised his. He had two lots, right? He had one as kind of CEO of the health areas, the BHBs, but he also had one as some sort of doctor where, you know, your doctors could then send him the stuff. And he was never giving exemptions. Now, we found out that the reason he wasn't giving exemptions was Section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act because to give exemptions, he had to be empowered under the Health and Safety at Work Act, Section 191. The fact is that we know he wasn't because part of Section 191 says that it has to be the designated person has to be gazetted and he's not in the gazette, right? So neither are people like the costa, who's another one, or the head of the New Zealand Defence Force, right? Nor any of these other CEOs of all of these government departments who also got in on the act and started saying you've got to get back or you'll lose your job. They all followed like a herd of, I won't say sheep, sheep are nice. But anyway, if we can go a little bit further down. Oh, yes, so more weapons under the Health and Safety at Work Act. So we had Section 92, which was the description of coercion for a prohibited health and safety reason. It's quite a complex way that that's introduced into the pleadings. But we're getting there with it. What's really the result of it is that we've got quite a few people, bosses wanting to settle. So they don't want it going to the authority because it's not going to be very nice for them because the authority must find it our favour. There's no way in law that they can get around it, right? It's no sort of charge. There was no contributing action by the worker. So all of the employment authority can do is follow the law. The conduct. So what I'm saying about Section 191 is they never had, there was never a legal mechanism in place for them to be demanding that workers get vaccinated. So what else did we have under Health and Safety at Work Act? We had things in the Section 83 letter like Section 28, 29 and 31, which were to do with not contracting out. You have to, and generally under the Health and Safety at Work Act, maybe things weren't under, weren't all explained in that letter because it would have been, you know, pages and pages long and we wanted to make it so people could kind of understand it. But a lot of, you know, I had to go on faith. But basically it was a warning letter. It was raising the problem. We've had a lot of pushback of, oh, 90 days, et cetera, et cetera. But what the other side doesn't seem to get is that there's also what's called raising a personal grievance within the, while you're still employed, or it survives the employment ending. But the section that we say, if you put in a Section 83 letter, you raised it for the purposes of Section 114 of the Employment Relations Act, which says that the raising of it arises at the time that it comes to the notice of the employee. And people knew pretty damn well that they had a problem when they got those letters saying, we want to talk to you about losing your job, right? So that was the first stone that was thrown, right? And that's when we started to come back with them and saying, no, this is right, et cetera. And people brought in all sorts of evidence, et cetera, about how bad this stuff was. And you all know the story. One of the sections in the Health and Safety at Work Act that's really exciting is Section 168, subsection 4. So that is the section whereby WorkSafe inspectors are not, they're allowed to get all sorts of information out of the workplace about the worker and everything, right? And usually it's information so that they can keep the workers safe, right? But one thing they're not allowed to do is have any information about your health status under Section 168, subsection 4, right? So that is an absolute bomb for them because it pretty much throws all of the CBC requirements in the bin. They're not allowed to have that information, right? So all that crap about, well, if you haven't got a CBC, if you're not going to tell us whether you're vexed or not, we're going to assume because they never had the right to any of that information in the first place, right? So it's not in the Privacy Act. It's in the actual Health and Safety at Work Act itself. And this is an act you've got to remember. This is an act. This is primary legislation. All of this crap that they did under the order, which is secondary legislation, is of no effect on this, right? So all of those orders did not overcome the general law. Absolutely not. Okay, let's have a quick look on the other side, Emma, about what were some of the exciting public law stuff that we got into. Now, you wouldn't think public law would be exciting, but everybody's into it now. And, of course, the one we all know the most now is New Zealand Borer. People will say, oh, you know, this is only for people who are working in the public sector. No, it is not, because you'll find that even in the order, and I think it's, no, that's not the order, the act itself says that if your rights are affected under Borer, Borer still holds, right? Okay, so, of course, everyone knows about Section 11, which is no medical interventions. The second one, and this is a really exciting one, because this is the act that, the Health Act 1956 is also the act I've tried to hide under the, you know, hide behind in Section 16 of the 2020 Act, which says something like you can do anything as long as you don't act in bad faith or recklessly, right? Well, I've done both. And so they're pinged, they've got no protection under the Health Act. But going through the Health Act, you'll find that it really was the act. If you've got a public health emergency, this is the act you're going to be using, and it sounds like they maybe did something like that in the UK. But there will also be in the UK probably something like Section 92, I for Ireland, you know, I for igloo. What's the international call for I? Indigo. Indigo, I for indigo. India, actually. India, is it? Okay. I for India. Subsection 5 of 92, I for India. And it's under no case is anybody to be forced to have medical treatment. Okay? It doesn't even say without their consent. It just says in no case, right? It's very clear. So, you know, this is why they wanted to avoid the Health Act, like the plague and set up that bullshit 2020 act to make it look like it was something different. Section 92C, you get all of the principles of the Health Act in terms of where it is a public health emergency. Respect for individuals. 92D is always voluntary compliance. They can do, they have to pretty much, if somebody doesn't want to comply with something, they pretty much have to take them to court and get a court order. None of the cops walking around telling people what to do stuff. You remember Liz when they were kind of making it look like they could come and burn your house down kind of thing. Oh, yes. Yeah. Well, that's the Health Act. But, you know, that's kind of like, well, if you've got the plague in your house and it's full of rats, good on them. Yeah. That's what I'd say. But that's in the Health Act. You know, this is, you'll also find in the Health Act that they have to actually prove you've got something. You know, it was just ridiculous when you looked at it. Section 92D was voluntary compliance. Then there were regulations made under the Public Health Act, and I think they were 1984. And there's a section there. Oh, sorry, a clause there, 117. Stop talking about the wasp hives. Yeah, well, that's right. Yeah, you've got wasps. The best thing to do is burn them out. Regulations under the Public Health Act, I think that's 1984. They have to be made. Oh, no, hang on. Oh, no, the regulations are made under section 117. That's right. And they have to be made as orders in council. Why I put this one in is I've got somebody said, and it was repeated to me, so it was obviously something that, you know, the latest bullshit, that all of those orders didn't have to be, they were made by order in council. No, they weren't. They were made by the regulatory people, right? And they were gazetted, the orders were gazetted, just not the authority to do anything under them, right? So the regulations for the Public Health Act, the orders in council. Now, there have been no orders in council made since 2017. The typical order in council that you'll see is something like ordering a road to be opened or they're going to put a highway somewhere or somewhere, something like that, okay? So, you know, that is also a red herring. Now, another really interesting act is the Medicines Act, 1981. This was the one where they used to get the stuff on the market, get the Pfizer vaccine on the market, Pfizer injection, and that was under section 23. But if you go back a couple of sections, you'll find section 20, subsection 3, and there is no warranty. Any permission given under the Medicines Act for the stuff to be marketed is not a warranty of safety and effectiveness, and that's clear as a bell, okay? There's talk about these new off-label medicines, as they call them, coming in, the bivalent. If you look in the Medicines Act, it's not a really long act. You'll see section 30, which is pretty much a description of what it is, trials, and there's special rules for trials. They have to say who they're going to trial, and then if you've ever seen what sort of things the trials of medicines or medical devices, you know, it's fully informed consent. They get paid to do it. They've got to, you know, they're very, very strictly controlled. The Health Act 1956, oh, and that was the interaction, which was I think it's section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, and that's how I said they're not protected if they're reckless or they act in bad faith. The WorkSafe letter pointed out to them that it wasn't good faith to be going into somebody's workplace and saying, you've got to do this and you've got to do that. It was great listening to this guy, Mike Bull, describing what he'd said when the health inspectors came in. Apparently, he said, no, this is what, because he'd been a cop, so he obviously did know a little bit about the law and told them to, you know, get lost, you know, and he's not going to sack any of his workers. You know, he didn't think it was, that there was nothing to the masking and all of this, and his son had asthma and he knew that it was dangerous to mask people, you know, people who have got breathing difficulties definitely shouldn't wear masks. Medicines regulations 1984, that's clause 44A. That's a very interesting regulation. If you're giving out medicines, injections, vaccinations, in a so-called public health emergency and they're not in prescription, you've got very strict rules about how it's done, the training and the authorization. Bloomfield didn't authorize any of these jabbers. And you can see an example of that. You can see an example of something like clause 44, 44A, when you look at the people who are designated to give tuberculosis vaccinations. Okay, what else we got? Oh, yeah, so we're talking, then I've pointed over to section 28 of the NZ Borer, that's your right to have a job. Okay, and it doesn't say it in that section, but the remarks of Justice Cook in Yardley, a very good illustration of that, where he talks about, you know, he doesn't describe it like that. I mean, I know the clause, I know the paragraph, but I can't remember it at the moment. We had lockdowns. We talked about lockdowns quite a bit. Individuals can be locked out of the workplace under section 82.1, subsection 1.2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That's yet to be tested on the courts. This is all new to them. What else have I got there? Section 191. Oh, yeah, that was the one I talked about quite extensively. WorkSafer's regulator, what they can and cannot do. Most designate to, oh, I can't read that. You're going to have to call me up, Emma, and say, what the hang are you writing there? Designate to proper institutions and agency of the Crown and notify New Zealand Gazette. Yeah, so that's section 191 is the section that will be keeping them up at night. Okay, so that's a quick run through of what I talked about last Wednesday. You can actually see it written down there. It's going to be done in a very nice format by Emma when she gets time. What did you have to do on the farm today, Emma? You were saying you started off a busy day. Oh, yeah, got a calf that's not very well and another heifer that's due to pop any day. Yeah, so keeping an eye on them. We don't have many, but even one calf, yeah, that needs medication throughout the day takes a bit of time. Yeah, so there you go, guys. You see, there's real life continuing, and we intend to keep it continuing. We're not going to go to the virtual world. We're not going to go to the crazy, you know, I don't know whether I'm a māta or māta or a cat or a dog or anything like that. That is not going to happen. So don't be afraid. We know what the battlefield is even if they don't. So keep bringing them back to reality. So no doubt you guys have got questions, and I'll stop talking and I'll just actually get myself a quick drink while you're thinking up questions. Yeah, no, that's awesome, Liz. That just gives us such a good summary of – Ness and I were thinking how awesome it would be to summarize and kind of make the journey that Liz has taken us on since I'm not sure when. Yeah, well, I think it doesn't hurt to go over the stuff a couple of times because, well, it's good. Good for me, too, because you tend to forget solutions sometimes and think, oh, I guess I could have done that, could have done that. Yeah, well, I mean, the stuff you've discovered is next level. I was telling Liz Gunn the other day, and she's like, wow, I've got to catch up with Liz again. Yeah. Oh, OK, that's good. She was very excited. Yeah. Oh, very good, very good, because I don't know if any of you have seen it, but Liz did an interview about the union, about the formation of the union, and probably about six months ago, but she just published it. Maybe it wasn't six months ago. Maybe it was. It was longer ago. It was spring last year. It was spring. OK, so it was six months. Yep. So, yes, it was formed in the spring, and then we hear about it in the autumn, but that's all right. Liz has been extremely busy, and I didn't catch up with her about what happened on Thursday. Anybody got any reports on that? Remember, her and Jonathan had to go to court at Manukau. Has anyone got any information about that? Oh, she's got to go back in June. That was pretty much, they put in a plea of not guilty. Oh, it was just a plea? Plead. OK. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, just like, what do you plead? Oh, I thought they did the plea earlier, but anyway. I think that's what it was. I know they've got to go back in June, and there wasn't really anything decided. First call over. Can I talk, Liz? Go for it, Karen. I think I saw a little video that Councillor Finn might have put up, and it was her talking outside the court, and that lovely man that's in the wheelchair that's vaccine damaged, he was there, and she was referring to him, Rob Martin, I think. Someone else might have been there, and she was asking those, saying to those reporters, why don't you ask Rob some questions? And the reporters weren't, I think there was a comment, the reporters weren't asking any questions. They just had their film people there, and the reporters actually left. And she thought that was disgusting. She did talk for quite a bit, and it was very good. The other thing is, did you see, I think it was also Councillor Finn put this up the night before last, and I was trying to show it to my son yesterday in a lunch break, because we were in town with the family court yesterday, but anyway, when I tried to play it, it said YouTube's removed this video, and it's about the guy, Pascal Najadi, who's a Swiss man with a British passport as well, and he was brought up in Iraq or Iran, I think, and his father was a manager of three, he had three banks. They had, I think they were private banks, and he was also on stage on the board of the World Bank, and that man was assassinated when this guy, Pascal, was 10. And anyway, he is marvellous. He was in court yesterday, or a few days ago, in New York, and he's taking Pfizer to court for a civil case, and for the rubbish, not a vaccine, he says, then not what they advertised it as, because of not producing transmission and being very dangerous. And he was very, very angry. Sort of a mislabelling or misrepresenting. Yes, misrepresenting it. And he also, he was very, very angry. What prompted all of this was he believed the government, and he was very angry with himself that he didn't check it all out, and he and his wife and his mother-in-law got vaccinated. He has since gone to some laboratory, I think, in Belgium, and they've done testing on his blood, and his blood is compromised, and he's very angry, and he's trying to go to court, and they've accepted the case. He also said that he's the only one that's gone to a police station, I think in Switzerland, and this is after the Thai princess saga, of the Thai authorities going to prosecute Pfizer as well, over the Thai princess, that he thought he was the only one that had gone to a police station and wanted him charged. But I thought there was a guy in Britain who had gone to a police station. Yes, I think you're right. If you go to a police station, it's a criminal matter. That's what he was saying. This is a civil matter he's done it under, and he couldn't tell us too much more because he didn't want it to be used against him. He wanted to keep his strategy secret, I suppose. But yes, it was in court in Manhattan. I think he's got two. He might have a criminal and a civil thing. So it sounds like the civil one is in the US because it's made there, right? That's the headquarters of Pfizer, is in the US. And that was also... You know, how I talked about on one of the Zooms how one of the members is a seafarer, and the class action that was run for... One of his mates was on a plane that didn't crash, but it dropped 10,000 feet just like that and gave everybody heart failure just now. And then this guy who runs class action in the United States, he actually went after the... He gets a list of all the passengers and the crew, and then he offers to take a class action for them. So even though this guy's a New Zealander, because the plane was American, the class action could be taken in the United States, right? So it should be the same, really, with people taking class action for everybody. Yeah, another thing he said was he hadn't mentioned money. He wanted them to be accountable for the damage. He didn't want people saying, oh, he's doing this to get money out of them. Yeah, but damages is money. In a civil case, the damages is money. In a criminal case, it can be some money, but it's usually jail. Yes. Yeah. Because basically the criminal jurisdiction is to take people off the streets who are a danger to the real society. Yes. Yeah, I think both should be done. But there's different systems, different processes and different courts for each of them. But if you're going to the police, you're wanting them arrested and prosecuted by the police. Apart from Section 144 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, where you can take a private prosecution, the courts themselves, the district court or wherever you're starting it off in, they have a discretion whether to accept it or not. But there have been private prosecutions taken under the Health and Safety at Work Act because either WorkSafe couldn't do it or wouldn't do it. Yeah. Now, the two cases that I know of, they're both involved. One is police and one is the defence court, I think. So they did private prosecutions because WorkSafe couldn't do it or couldn't do it or something like that. There's time limits on that though. No, that's good. But yeah, what I've always said about WorkSafe is because they've got unclean hands, they can't go before the court. They weren't supposed to. They didn't do anything. They were acting unlawfully themselves. They should at least have known their own act. Yes, yeah. And I'm sure that the people at the top knew exactly what they were doing. They're total criminals. Yeah, they were. Yeah, that's kind of, you know, in modern... What do you call it? The modern administration, they get their jobs, they have their little box, they sit in their little... I mean, this is still work. They sit in their little box and do what they're told and they don't know anything that's going on around them. They work from 9 to 5 and have team building and running around and playing all kinds of games. They've told them to do something that they can just do it. But, I mean, they've never had that happen to them before, so I don't know where the hell they got that idea. You're not even allowed to interfere in the workplace. Anyone working under the Public Service Act section 54, I think it is, you're not allowed to. Nobody is allowed to interfere in their work. This is to protect us. This is how we don't hear a man, you know, a fascist government saying to the public servants, do this, and they do it. Isn't it interesting what's happening with Stuart Nash? Yeah, well, I think that, you know, what happened down at Hawke's Bay, I think it was a lot to do with what happened down at Hawke's Bay. He was also the Minister of Forests. Yes, and paid big money by the forests to his election campaign. Really? I think that was an article on Stuff on Sunday, I saw that. He was also the Minister of Police with the Christchurch shooting, wasn't he? So he's had an interesting career. Are you sure he was the Minister of Police? I'm pretty sure he was. Yeah, it might have been. I thought it was Judith Collins. Judith Collins was Nash. No, no, no, it was, what do you call it, it was her in the hijab. So it must have been a Labour Minister of Police. Yeah, it was Nash. Pretty sure it was Nash. Interesting career that fella, he seems to be where there's trouble all the time. Yeah, he looks creepy. Well, if you can be bought, yeah, you will sell out. Yeah, you will sell out your countrymen. Of course, what's coming up on the 17th at the Wellington Employment Court is Turner case and document 33 that we're going to be talking about on document 33 is the cases for the designation of terrorist groups that are going to be talked about in the Employment Court. Because even though it's a case about free speech anywhere, she got pinged for free speech, wasn't even in the workplace, but they managed to wrangle it around and say that what she said on a private Facebook page was something to do with the code of practice for the Nursing Council or whatever. So they're deep in the doo-doo and the person who drove it turned out after a little bit of investigation to have worked in the NZDF for a number of years and been deployed overseas, has some sort of degree in security, as in international security, did two years, he's got a Master's in it, did work with the Americans on some sort of degree and was making out that she didn't know what she was talking about when she was saying that some of the statements by Muslim people were a danger to our country and that their ideology was a danger to our country. Got called a racist and all sorts of stuff, lost her job. They tried to take her licence off her. That's still in the strike-out bin at the moment. They're not replying to anything about that. So they're probably waiting to see what will happen at the Employment Court, but it has enabled us to weave the story of what is going on with terrorist groups in this country. They're not white supremacists. So how did the Greens leader get away with your statement when you're doing this to this other person? You'll probably find that that woman from the Greens is probably affiliated to one of these terrorist groups. Well, has sympathy, let's say that. Probably quite sympathetic. If you're walking around with a Palestinian cape around you, it means that you want to see the State of Israel driven into the sea, because that's what they publish. And they carry it out too. They carry it out. And it's not just political. Because religion and politics are the same thing in the jihad. You're aware of certain reports out of Israel that they're in total civil unrest. The universities and hospitals are all in lockdown. Yes, I heard that. Yes, well, they've decimated their population with jabs. Highest jab country in the world, I thought. And they were the first to start. Some of them are running, what, five or six jabs now. Lynette says, no, Lou's actually posted an article, a Substack article, and it mentions that the Greens used their mailing list to rally people to protest. Fancy that. Oh, did they? And see that protest through stuff over that Posey lady that has gone to Australia and won't come back? Gone to the US. Today? Gone to the US. It's gone everywhere, which is awesome. No, she's saying, are you talking about the actual person, Karen? Yeah, the person who threw something over Posey has stated today in the news that she has gone to Australia because she's fearful of her life. What a load of crap. I mean, you know, the worst talk about projection. Yes. It's the worst PR New Zealand's had in a long, long time makes us look like a third world country. Well, we are. Yeah. We are. But that makes me more determined than ever to fight. They are pinpointing those groups, though. When Tucker Carlson was talking about it, he was clearly saying the leftist. I can't remember quite how we extremist group. He wasn't saying all New Zealanders are like that. So, yeah, I think they are. I think that most countries understand because they've all got groups of like these crazies. And unfortunately, they're very high profile because they've all got the best jobs. You know, they do say that these psychopaths do rise to the top in the jobs. You know, they're up in the show. And we're a very small country, and we've got one of the craziest leaders of all. And they probably think we're all that. Yeah, we're all that. There was a study done in the United States. They said 95% of CEOs were sociopaths. And the ones that were the best were the ones that had it the best. Yeah. She's bragging. She also just got her Colombian citizenship. Oh, so she's a Colombian, is she, Luke? So did they chuck her out of Colombia? Corporate psychopathic. Psychopathic. Okay, so anybody else got any news? You know about the new Freedom Radio that started? I was talking to one of the reps from there. And you just about have your own channel on there. And you just about have your own channel on there, from what I understand, where you can continuously play these podcasts if you want. Oh, interesting. Oh, that sounds good. So they're basically acting as a platform rather than having someone like Sean Plunkett sort of gatekeeping. That's what I understand. I mean, they want to be a real radio station sometime, but at the moment it's just over the internet. But because Brent was interested in doing an interview on it, he could give his own channel if he wanted. So it might be something for you. There's one called Real... Freedom Radio? Reality Check. Reality Check with Peter Williams and... Yeah, so that's one. Yeah, that one. Is that Reality Check? Yeah. Wouldn't it be good, Liz... I believe so, yeah. Wouldn't it be good, Liz, if you and Brent were interviewed on there by Peter Williams about personal agenda? Oh, yes. Yeah. Perhaps you could try and arrange that. Yeah. Well, the way I figure it is, I haven't got time to run around saying, please interview me. But you interview really well. You do know that, right? And the ones that you guys are getting are just so inspirational. I mean, I know you're covered by confidentiality clauses and that, but if you can broad brush some numbers and that, I mean, people need some hope, and you guys are really giving it to them. I mean, people talk to me about all the other organizations that I know of or connected with, and this is the only one that I can actually spout numbers and say, well, you guys are really starting to get some wins here in the courts. And most of them are saying, you know what... That's the thing. We're not really in the courts because... No, it's not going that far. Yeah, I understand that. But the thing is, they're all saying, oh, the system's not working. And you're saying the system is working, and you're proving the system is working because these people don't want to go to court. They want to settle out of court. And I don't know how many settlements out of court you've had where people have been back paid, and if you can release just general numbers or what. But I know you're getting some good wins, and there's nothing like a winner to bring people in. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, you know, we could be victims of our own success if we go too fast because we don't want to disappoint people. Yeah, I understand that. But anyway, Simon, one of our advocates who's a really good negotiator, he's got an idea about how we might clear up our backlog. We've probably got about 30 people that we should have written up the PGs for now. We've probably settled about another 30. Yeah. And in terms of PGs, that is... Pretty good. That is huge. A law firm would probably be doing maybe five, right? So, I mean, you know, in a corporate, you know, I'm not talking about the no-jib, no-jib. I'm not talking about no win, no pay. And the unions weren't taking PGs either. The thing is, the no win, no pay, it costs you a hell of a lot of money, and they will not take anything where they have to unless they're absolutely sure they can win it. But, I mean, so many of the meetings, people just sort of get there and spread the fear and the terror. And, like, this is real inspiration and hope for people. And it is just so important to give people hope because, you know, some of the meetings you come away from, you just want to cut your own throat. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, I think we had to kind of people had to have their consciousness raised to a certain extent about this is really what's going on, and you're not alone. But then you get to that point of, like, well, we're not going to have a cryfest here, guys, because we've got some solutions, right? Yeah. So, yeah, I'd say that that's the difference. Whether you see our solutions working, we can say they are, but the others don't seem to even have solutions. No, they don't. I mean, you've got education going here, and I speak to people now, and they sort of say, gee, just follow the law dictionary, and that's all coming from you. And, you know, the stuff you're getting across is clear and concise, and that's great, and you're getting wins. And, you know, it is really inspirational, and the more you can get out there and tell people without letting the cat out of the bag and maintaining your security in it, the better off everyone will be. Well, we don't need to talk about anybody's names. I mean, Amanda's name is out there. It's going to be anybody can get to the Employment Relations, not Relations, the Employment Court in Wellington. They can see it. We're going to get a lot of people there, and there's too many for the court. I mean, the court should be encouraged to, you know, put out, you know, if you get hold of the registrar, and you should be able to get, because it's going to be about three days at least. Yeah. But the first day will be the most interesting, I think, because that's going to be the day when we talk about the fact that we've got terrorists in this country, all she was doing was doing what she should have been doing and talking about it, and she got unjustifiably dismissed for doing so, and that's where it brings it into the employment area, and that's, you know, why it is so. We even have specific law within the Employment Relations Act that says you're allowed to have political speech. Yeah. And that is because we need to have political speech in every place. Yes. Yeah, and not be afraid of losing our jobs for political speech. There's only been one political speech case in New Zealand. There was a case called O'Day, and who was it? What about that man from Sinley? Oh, that's Williams. Yes, Lee Williams. Lee Williams. I was working with Lee. I can't say. No, he didn't sign off their offer anyway, so I can say they did make him an offer, and then for some reason he didn't take it, and not only that, he just took off to the UK for a while. So, you know, we could have taken the case forward. Was they a member of his? That's right. He was doing these great comedy skits on YouTube about, what's his name, Waiti or whatever his name is, of the co-leader of the Maori Party. And he'd put that cowboy hat on and he'd do the accent, you know. It was really good. And so we had this, we didn't have mediation. We had Zooms, and they didn't want to go. They didn't want to go to, they were saying, oh, you know, our shareholders are, you know, very upset about this, and da-da-da, so you have, yeah, cross the Rubicon. You know, you should actually, if you go back on YouTube, you might even find him on YouTube doing some of those. Those are really good. And they were saying, you know, so we were going to, I was going to take it to the Employment Relations Authority for them, and then I said, but they've made this offer, and then he said, oh, you know, I didn't know what he was wanting to do. And then next thing, and then he sort of just disappeared. But he was, Carl. His marriage broke up. Did he? Yeah, and I think he was sort of like, you know, was really crushing, really crushing. He just needed to get out of this blasted country. But he should have taken the money that they were offering as well. Yeah. The other thing, Liz, I wanted to mention, are you aware of the Art Project by Peter Georgison, Jordan Peterson, sorry, and Joe Rogan, and there's some other big people who put it together. They're having a conference, I think, in England in the next couple of months, and they're forming as a counter to the WEF, want a decentralized government, and most of the stuff you're talking about. But Joe Rogan's got 30 million followers on YouTube, and Jordan Peterson has got something like 5.1. And I understand there's a couple of ex-politicians that aren't happy about what's going on here, and they're going to the conference, and it's going, they're going to have a discussion, come up with some solutions, and then go to the people on what they want to do, because they're all about getting power back to the people, decentralized government, and what little bit's left over for the federal government to run. That's all they'll get. Much the same thing that you've been saying and Brent's been saying. Yep. Yep. That's right. Well, they haven't called me up yet. No, but you'd be an ideal candidate to go, because I think they want to limit it to about 2,000 people at the conference. You said they'd love to have more, but they couldn't sort of have open discussion with, you know, superlatives. They're having a physical conference, are they? They're having a physical conference that'll be open to everyone to watch, and I think it's in a couple of months. I'm not sure. It's all coming together, and some real big names are coming out of the woodwork, like Jordan Peterson wouldn't say exactly who they were, because they had to get their stuff in order before they've come forward, and there have been a few other big names sort of starting to come out of the woodwork too, so most of it's JordanPeterson.com on his website is a good place to start if you're interested in having a look at that. Very good. Very good. Oh, well, I'll take my phone off mute. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll have to have a fundraiser or something to send you over. We'll get you there, Liz, if you wanted to go. For sure. Too busy. Too much to do, eh? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, well, you know, but as I say, in terms of what they've done with Lockstep, if the rest of the world followed what we're doing in New Zealand, we'd have this sorted, and it would be a really good start to then clear the decks and start anew, like they're planning. Yeah, it's going to happen. It's going to happen, guys. Because they've broken the law, Dave. Like, if you follow, they wrote the laws. All we need to do is follow them. Many laws. Yeah. It's way more than one. Yeah. Yeah. Now, there's a very good, very interesting Hamilton group that's got the CEOs of the councils running for the hills, too, so they're doing good work. Oh, tell us a little bit about that, Ena. That sounds really, really good. I'll go to Hamilton. There you are. I'll come to Hamilton, because I hear that my hometown's involved as well. Mm, mm. So, yeah, the Auckland CEO, council CEO, definitely quit because of the paperwork that he got served. The Hamilton one has the same paperwork now and tried desperately to avoid getting served the paperwork, but in the end, he realised he was going to have to... Yeah. Oh, very good. Very good. So, yeah, so they're going really well there, looking to stop that bird park down there that's being taken. Oh, yes, yes. The road. Yes. The road that's being proposed could be built... Could be built. Very closely without four bridges. So the one they're proposing needs four bridges. The alternative only needs one. The company that is going to be building the bridges, of course, you know, there's a conflict of interest there, which is why they got the job. Where they're proposing to put it, it ruins, goes through a whole lot of Maori artefacts, land, yeah, natural habitat, you name it, whereas if they shift it, they could avoid all of that. So, yeah, Hamilton Group's working hard to stop that. Have you been on those Hamilton motorways? There's hardly anybody on. Interesting, eh? No. Waiting for the... I don't know what happens when you get down there. It's quite strange. You know, I've never been on a build-up of traffic on them. Maybe they just... I mean, there's a bypass on either side now. You've got one on the west and, yeah, west and east. That's like travelling very easy. That's for sure down there, not like Auckland. Yeah. There's a lot of money being spent out of council, so it's just, you know, glad-handing. Yep, terrible corruption. Yep. I would think Geoff would love those meetings in Hamilton. They'd be very interesting to him, I'm sure. Long way for him. I think there's plenty going on up north, really. There's really tons going on up there. Yeah, it'll get up there anyway. Someone I know in Dunedin was saying that they're getting ready to serve the papers down there as well. Oh, good. Dunedin is great. Great. Oh, did you hear that all the primary schools apparently have been served papers? Oh, good. About, you know, not... Stabbing the kids without... Yeah, the boards and the teachers being liable for anything that happens to the children. Good, good. Medications and that. Yeah, good. Yeah, if you guys want to have a look at, have a look on YouTube and Bedford, P-H-E-T-F-O-R-D, is really good, some good stuff going on. And it's quite close to Oxford, I think, but it's part of Norfolk County. So it's quite a big takes in Oxford, which would be the southern part. Norfolk was where Cromwell came from. Right. Yeah. So, and apparently Cromwell was a great admirer of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was born in Thetford. Oh. Yeah. And one of the interviews that they're doing is at the Thetford Arms, the pub there. How do you spell that place? T-H-E-T-F-O-R-D. Okay. And they were put in the, there were three of them interviewed, but the one that I was listening to was Mike Bull, B-U-L-L. Yep. Liz, Thomas Paine's writings are available on PDF and you could just about put them on your site unless we're breaching copyright. We should get them on the, because we have a lot of reading lists to do on the personal agenda site as well. And yeah, Thomas Paine's. What's it called? Common Sense? Yeah, there's about three of them. They're real interesting. He certainly didn't think much of sovereigns, that's for sure. Yeah. Yeah. And very, very popular. Was it From Lion to Arse? Wasn't it? You start with a lion and then a couple of generations you're stuck with an arsehole. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you know, really what surprised me was, now a lot of people might know of a Scottish MP called George Galloway. Oh, yes. Yes. So George Galloway made this fantastic speech to, I think it's the Oxford Union. Yeah. And he makes, so you'll find that on YouTube too. And he starts off, you know, quite, it's quite funny, you know, but he talks about, but what was really shocking to me, and people laughed, but I found really shocking, was he said, I don't know about, you know, Charles getting crowned and that, even though, you know, it must be the divine right of kings because, you know, his family, you know, everybody else doesn't think much of him. And I thought, George, don't you know about the English Civil War? That's what it was fought over, the divine right of kings. There is no such thing. That's why you've got modern Britain, basically. Right? Yeah. The thing is, and then, of course, 1649, when they, as soon as they executed Charles I, they wrote the law that said you cannot, you cannot proclaim a new king under, it would be treasonous, okay? So, all of the kings and queens since then have nothing. Nothing. The law remains so. The law remains, yeah, exactly. So, yeah, so George needs to be educated. But, yeah, the, I don't know what year Thomas Paine was born, but probably not too long after that. Maybe he must have been born about the same time. If Cromwell knew of him, he'd be really contemporaneous. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm, that's why Charles will not be crowned king. Yep, you're right, Lynette. 9th of February, 1737. He was born then? Yep, Thomas Paine was, yep. According to Google. 17. Yeah. Well, maybe he was an admirer of Cromwell. He must have been, not Cromwell of him. Yeah. So he was well before the American Constitution, because I thought he was sort of a forerunner to that, but he was well before that. No, no. The American Constitution, we've got 1776, isn't it? Okay, so he would have been a contributor to that. He was born 17, what year was he born in? 1737. Yeah, he's late then, yeah. So he would have been a young man. Yeah. Yeah, 40ish. Right. Yeah, it's young. No, I just love the way the scale changes as we get older. I do the same thing too, so. Yeah, that's for sure. Yes, but Cromwell died in 1658, wasn't it? 1658? 58. Somewhere around there. In 58, yeah. Yeah, cool. Should have been inspired by the French, really, shouldn't they? No, the French were after. Where they are. Yeah, yeah. The French, no, the English Civil War is really what kicked it off for Europe. Yeah. Then you got the French, then you got the Americans. I think that's the order. The Russians were much later, yeah. Yeah. The French were also, he wrote for the French as well. I wonder what year the French Revolution was. But yeah, they had, you know. Busy time for the world then, wasn't it? I guess they tried to have a clean out then too. Yeah, man, that must have been like now, but better. I mean, ours was better. I don't know, they had guillotines, we didn't. We do. We do. We still do. We do, and they are maintained at Mount Eden. Excellent. Really, Ben? Yeah. Really? Two of them. They've got full-time staff that look after them. We've never used them here, have we? I don't know yet. No, I don't know. I thought we only hung people here. But yeah, someone's obviously got a job sharpening them. Oh, no, beg your pardon. So it's gallows. It's gallows. Oh, yeah, I was going to say, I didn't think we had gallows. Sorry, gallows. But the gallows are maintained as well, which I thought was very interesting. The last hanging, I think, was about in the 40s. Yeah, it wasn't that long ago. There was one over Lyttelton here too, somewhere around that time, I believe. Oh. Oh. Not again. Yeah, I don't know. To a certain extent, I think that, you know, it's better keeping them alive and. Suffering. Suffering. Yep. Yeah, let, you know, we've still got the commandment. And even if we don't do it ourselves, you know. Yeah. They are, you know, the people who kill. Yeah. They have to face that again after. But yeah, we don't want to. Well, that's my personal view. I thought, you know, I've often thought about it. Yeah. But. They're on some sort of squeaky door. Yeah, well, I mean, they beheaded Charles and probably it was possibly the wrong thing. But, you know, I mean, you just couldn't, I guess, in those days, it was the done thing. You know, it wasn't huge. They didn't have any debates about should the be. They hung Drew and quarter. At least they just chopped his head off. But, you know, they dug up for a while. Because they used to. They didn't hang Drew and quarter people. That was what was in Braveheart. Yeah. The trouble is they couldn't afford the Royalists coming together and starting another civil war. So they ended up there and made sure that it couldn't happen. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
