N8WUNZ 20230421 (F) Lizs Updates From Wellington Employment Court

The speaker discusses a recent court case involving free speech and workplace rights. They mention that medical professionals have been silenced and threatened with job loss for questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines. The case also involves issues of privacy and political free speech at work. The speaker references a previous case involving two women who were unfairly treated by their employers. They argue that the dismissal of the plaintiff in this case was unjustified and motivated by racism and political beliefs. The speaker also mentions concerns about the transgender movement and the potential dangers of certain ideologies. They emphasize the importance of keeping political ideology out of schools and the need for informed decision-making in healthcare. The speaker believes that the employer in this case failed in their duty to provide a safe and healthy workplace. They argue that the dismissal was a violation of privacy and a form of drug pushing. The speaker highlights I'll do Facebook. Thanks. And I've grabbed that link, too, that you wanted to share. Yeah, hopefully we can see that. Is that the one about the transgender stuff? Yeah. Yeah, you know, you'll sort of think, oh, what's that got to do with all of this? But I did talk about one of the aspects of that at the case, actually, and the judge was quite interested. Oh, good. Oh, gee, we're getting a full house tonight. It's quite a long article, but you can actually, it's got a link for an audio as well. Oh, that's cool. Liz's got a haircut. No, it's still all there. God, I don't cut it off like that, Geoff. No, no, no short back. Was it short back and sides? No, it's not. Okay. So what I want to talk to you about tonight was the case and kind of the bigger implications. Now, this is a free speech case, which is very important. It's probably, well, it's been behind the withdrawal of free speech or the shutting down of free speech. It's been behind the medical professionals, especially being shut down and not be allowed to talk to people. Threatened with their jobs, threatened to lose their jobs. Being told, given a script, basically, that this vaccine stuff was safe and effective and not to ask any questions. Or believing in their naivety that it was actually something that the state had looked at in the form of Medsafe, if you like. I don't know, I'm all out of sync with the video, but anyway, can't be helped. Just listen to the words, guys. It's the easiest way to go. So I'm going to go through the closing submissions and then I won't read the whole thing out to you. I'll just go through what's kind of relevant. So you remember I talked about the documents about the jihad groups, the terrorist groups, over the last few weeks. Well, they decided they weren't going to have them as part of the case and I wasn't going to be able to cross-examine what's resolved. What's his name? Halligan on it. But anyway, he denied that he had anything to do with that part of terrorism studies later on. But it did put people on notice in the court that there were such websites. And there was this thing called the New Zealand Gazette, which is also extremely important that people get familiar with it, because it's in the Gazette that we're going to find out so much of really what the government is up to all of the time, checking they're doing it right and pulling them up, of course, when they do it wrong. Because the fact that there was no gazetting for the operational side of rolling out VACs to the workforce, and I say the workforce, everything else was between non-workers, it was between them and their doctors. The workforce, they were forced into it. As we know, there was no legal authority for your CEO of your government department or anything like that to do such a thing. So in the end, we'll pull them up. But this case was about free speech, because you can't often get even to these matters, especially in the media, if you haven't got free speech. But very, very importantly, for the worker, they need to be able to have what I describe as political free speech at work. Now, this case was outside the workplace, and the other side, of course, argued that it was inside, it was enough to make the employer lose trust and confidence and all that stuff. What I argue from the point of view of under the Privacy Act, they offended the first four principles of the Privacy Act, that basically you have a space that is private to you. And I know I've often said, you know, it only applies to the state, but no, it doesn't. It doesn't just apply to the state, it applies to all of the businesses, right? So anyway, we found this case of Hammond, which turned out to be quite funny, actually. This is a case about two women, and they had jealous managers, basically. They were the managers in the credit union, New Zealand Credit Union, where they worked. I think it was called Baywide Credit Union. Anyway, they were fools, these managers, and just wrecking the company, basically. So these women got sick of it, but then they got hassled for trying to do their jobs, and they both left. One of them was still on what you'd call garden leave. That's what the company was arguing, so that she's still owed what's called fidelity to her boss. But anyway, they decided, oh, we've had enough. So they had a party, and for the party, they made a cake, and they iced it. And on the top, they write, if you see cake, NZ see you if you see cake. And around the outside, they wrote, on obscenity, I'm not even going to say the word. And they did it in colours of the credit union. They put it on Facebook. Oh my goodness. So anyway, that was okay. But the company found out, and it's quite funny because when you read the case, it was in the Human Rights Authority tribunal. And they said, oh, the executives weren't invited to the party. But they found out, and so it was this madman, quite frankly, you know, the psychopath of a boss that most people have come across, that decided, right. So he said to one of the other junior psychopaths, oh, we're going to send this off, this photograph off to all of the, what do they call them, people who hire you, employment agencies in Hawke's Bay. And tell them this person's not to be trusted in the finance sector. I mean, I can just imagine them getting it, right. And sort of, what the hell? But anyway, long story short, they found in her favour. And mostly on privacy principles. But I was interested in the case from the point of view of how they'd actually got the screenshots of the supposed racist comments, right. And, of course, what they were looking for in the first place was our member warning the people off, but not in the workplace. This was her own stuff, you know, and it was actually picking up, and this is the other thing that I'm hoping the judge can understand the difference. Picking up a posting that somebody has already made and then sharing it. Now, as you know, when we share those things, people share them on, but they don't share on your name with your comment. They just share on the email, they just share on the posting, right. So there was no danger at all to the DHB being brought in to distribute. It's just silliness and misunderstanding. But what was really interesting about this was that they picked up on our members' objection to things like postings from murderous and really murderous jihadist groups and supporters saying things like, you know, we're going to come and deal to you Westerners, etc. Also, the suggestion that we should teach, our children should be allowed to be taught the Muslim religion in schools, which, you know, we haven't even got. You know, we're trying to keep church and state separate things because then we get into real trouble when we get the church and state together in the school. And, you know, if people want to send their children to religious schools, or I don't know what the Muslim one is called, they have a term for it and they can send their kids there. Same with Jewish people can send their kids to Jewish schools, Catholics or other denominations of Christianity can send their kids to those schools if they want. We have to keep ideology, particularly political ideology, out of our schools. So I'll read you a little bit of the case and then I'll talk about that. So basically what had happened is they got somebody, put pressure on her, we argue, to actually take screenshots of these posts that they decided they were going to get rid of her on. So Liz T, I'll go down to the 8th paragraph, had a blameless record in terms of work for the dying. Her employer has acknowledged such. And here's the other part. There were so many interesting parts to this case because all of you guys who had trouble with your unions, thank you for trusting us that we're not like them. This is what happened with her union. The first disciplinary meeting was called at extremely short notice late on Friday afternoon and was scheduled for 9am on Monday morning. Liz T struggled to find representation from the nurses union over the weekend. She was finally able to tell her employers at 9.02am that she would not attend until the union had examined the allegations. On being informed, Mr KC decided to immediately suspend her on pay without allowing her to be heard on what under her contract should have been a chance to make submissions. So you're allowed to, you know, if they say we're going to suspend you, then you're allowed to say, well, hang on, before you do that, I've got to make submissions about it. Further gross unfairness ensued when on the 7th of April, her NZSO union representative went behind her back prior to the meeting and had a secret meeting with the employer's representatives. And in a stunning display of disloyalty, told them that Ms T was very angry about her life being trolled through and that she, Ms Thomas, felt unsafe that Ms Thomas was the NZSO union rep. Rather than abandon the meeting as a meeting with no effective representation for Ms T, Mr KC and others, and there were four others, went through the charade of an investigative meeting. The tone of the meeting was, for Ms T, excruciating. The two women that she sees were the chief bullies, OBR and SN, had been involved in breaching her privacy and what she contends are non workplace matters. The interrogation was as if she were a criminal that needed to understand the crimes she'd been convicted of already. So this was, I think, the experience with a lot of people. Once the bosses etc. got into this mindset of, you were really quite, you know, I mean it was expressed by the Minister of Envy down at the Freedom Village, you know, River of Filth, that you weren't really, you know, all of these good people had been working for these businesses and, you know, in the hospitals. Of course, all of the nurses had been working since the beginning of lockdown, which was March of 2020. And then we get to April of 2022. So a year later, and suddenly, for some reason, they're the most disloyal and terrible people on the planet. So there's also another layer to this because, of course, the bosses have tried and are still trying to remove Miss T's rego, but we're conducting a strikeout application on that and that's going to be more fun in the future to hear about. So there was another important point made here. Firstly, and at the time of the subsequent meetings, neither the DHB nor the Nursing Council had a written policy forbidding anti-vaccination information. Post Miss T's sacking, one was put in place, we submit that the policy offends the principle of informed decision making that is required for subsequent informed consent. Because if the medical professional is not allowed to say, well, this is dangerous in some ways, but if you, you know, I can't think of any cons. But anyway, if they'd been allowed to express their doubts, then at least the patient has got, so that's informed decision making, right? Then the patient has got a chance to make informed consent. Without it, nothing, right? The vaccine programme that was being pushed by the employer could only legally operate if full information as to the pros and cons of the substance was allowed to be shared with health consumers. Now, these submissions, she's going to have to comment on them, right? If she doesn't comment on them, there's going to be more appeals. We submit that Miss T was complying with this important principle whilst her employer tried to stifle it. These were not the actions of a fair and reasonable employer, so you bring it back to the employer, right? The employer attempted to hide behind the veneer of fact-based information, but appears to have been unable or unwilling to give any information about the actual 58 conditions placed on the provisionally approved C19 vaccination that were notified in the New Zealand Gazette on 3 February 2021. One of the ongoing trials, study C4951001, was a randomised blinded placebo-controlled safety, immunogenicity and efficacy study of 44,000 participants. So, basically, a safe and effective trial, and they did it, and I talked to the submission and I said, basically, this is a trial to test the safety and efficacy. Because under a provisional consent, you've got to notify if any trials are ongoing or if they've got any results. But all they did was notify that this trial was ongoing. And then what happened? So, on 3 February 2021, when a nine-month provisional consent for adults 16 years and over was approved, the provision of the study to Medsafe was one of 58 conditions attached. When the provisional consent was renewed on October 2021, for a further two years, the study was still not provided. And what I said to the court was, it wasn't provided, and it's not probably never going to be provided because of the way it's written into the consent, because it says something like, when the study is published, it's got to be provided to Medsafe within five working days. It's never been published. Now, the other thing, though, that the employers should have been doing under the Health and Safety at Work Act was looking at the Medsafe site. So we started to get Medsafe publication of things like provision, not provision, what did they call it? That was the piece of material on Medsafe where it gave you the contraindications. Now, I told these to the court, too, things like, if you were hyperallergic, if you were allergic, had pregnant and nursing mothers, if you were frail, you had comorbidities, etc., etc. If you already had immune suppression, immunogenicity, I think that was the one. So if you were compromised on any cancer tablets or anything like that, those were the contraindications. These blasted so-called medical people just went straight ahead, took no notice of any of that. They were supposed to. This is what I said in the next paragraph. This employer, who has a PCBU under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, was duty-bound to provide a safe and healthy WorkSafe, was required, we submit, to take the simple step of informing themselves of potential hazards. On 19 February, Ms T posted a call to Maori warning them not to be fooled by a campaign that denied herd immunity. It's a conspiracy theory. Any health professional with basic knowledge knows this to be a fact. Yet because of the racism blinders applied by those who also neglected to do their duty under the HSWA, her warnings instead landed her in unwarranted trouble. So basically they were supposed to be informing themselves. They didn't. They pushed the campaign on Maori and island people, pushed it, denied their own natural immunity. Criminals. Absolute criminals. The WRDHB did dismiss the plaintiff unjustifiably by the correct interpretation of Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act. The section requires that the dismissal is something that a fair and reasonable employer in the circumstances would do. From the outset, the process was tainted by spying, which was not only morally reprehensible but legally very suspect. Because we can't say it's illegal until we get the finding. Whether the judge actually comes up with a finding of unjustified dismissal or not, I believe we should win some points on the actual way it was done. But it was very important to get some knowledge into the actual courtrooms about what's going on. So what do we say about unjustifiably dismissed? The circumstances were novel, as is agreed, but the denial of the discussion that precluded any talk of known dangers and uncertainties of the substance amounted to no more than drug pushing. Professional bodies, whose job it is to safeguard health, often by means of the precautionary principle, who act in this way, cannot be said to have been anywhere near reasonable in the sense of exercising reasons. The racism charge was manufactured. It was the exercise of critical race theory in the service of putting the plaintiff in a bad light as someone unfit to safely nurse patients. Now if you look at, go back to the page after this and you'll find a link to a paper put out by Epoch Times. And it's interesting, they start off talking about the dangers to young ones of this transgender ideology in terms of their mental and physical health and also to the rest of us. But that's cool. It fits into a box, if you like, and I talked to the judge about critical race theory because that was important in this case. She actually asked for some more information about it, which kind of surprised me. That's okay. Critical race theory comes from Marxism, right? So in that article, it's really well explained that when you've got people who think they're oppressed or are determined to be oppressed, and so that means that they're always the good and their so-called oppressors are always the evil. So we've applied this, well I applied this, in terms of when you are making a political statement about, for example, you put the population in danger from jihad, which is a thing, it goes with Islam. Sorry guys, it does. It gets a lot of, and there's something about that in that paper too, it gets a lot of support from people who never do it themselves, but they support it morally and sometimes with money. And that's why groups who espouse jihad are on that terrorism list, and we've got lots of them in New Zealand, right? But apparently, so the transgender thing comes into what's called, it sits in that Marxist ideology again of always, you've got two groups, one who's good and one who's evil, and no matter what the so-called good group does that's evil, it can never be viewed that way, because they've actually gone a bit doolally, they've gone a bit crazy, right? And it's a really good article, so have a read of it. But anyway, it got an earring in the court, so there's going to be talk about that in the future. The matter was not a workplace problem. The defendants had to go searching for the problem that didn't exist in the workplace. The posts were not for minister's patients or colleagues' consumption. They were on a private page on her Facebook account, etc. The plaintiff's evidence clearly showed she was discriminated against because of both her religious and her political beliefs. They even said in one of the emails, she's a staunch, we've had trouble with her before, she's a staunch Trump supporter. Oh my goodness. It gets better and better. Yeah. We submit that in fact all posts were political in nature. They were protests against an objectively dangerous immigration or education policy. That was another one, wanting to teach Muslim culture, which is religion. You can't separate out the two. And it's not a race, by the way. Because with Muslim culture and the jihad and the takeover comes Sharia law. Now, that can involve female genital mutilation. Up to four wives, I think it is. We've seen what happened to the people in the UK, the grooming, because you've got a whole lot of young men who haven't got women. And if you read the sayings of Muhammad, you'll find out that when you are overcoming the infidels, rape is acceptable. Far out. As is lying. But there's a whole lot of stuff. The place of women. The idea that that blasted woman was walking around with a hijab on and women are being chucked in jail. Our sisters, our human sisters are being chucked in jail and assaulted in the street for not wearing that sort of stuff all over them. It's actually extremely unhealthy, too, because you can't get any vitamin D. Yes, he's supposed to be the ideal man, Nikolai. Oh, yes, correct. He had actually 15 wives. Yes. And one was an eight year old. That's awesome. Yes. And then I talked a bit about the law in New Zealand is traditionally and rightly, in our opinion, drawn a bright line to prevent interference by the employer into the private life of the employee. Now, this seemed to be the submission that got the judges' interest the most, although we did talk about the other things, was that, you know, you've got your private life outside of work. We had a lot of talk about another case, another, you know, that line, where is the line? And it's a case about Christchurch Press back in the day when, you know, they had printers and all of those things and people worked in offices together. And it was one workmate raping another, raping a woman in the lunch break when he took her home to lunch at his house. But, you know, and of course, he was spanked. And then he complained. And judge said, well, you know, he brought the, you know, brought them into disrepute. I said, well, it was more than that. It was a case of he, you know, she was in danger in the workplace. So he had to make a judgment call about, you know, he had to sack the guy to protect the other worker. And then the worker took him to court. But anyway, I said, it's a very different situation. This was never anything to do with work at all. You know, it was just not even in the ballpark. So the WRDHB's decision to dismiss Ms T for what she staunchly maintained was her right to free speech outside of the workplace was clearly unjustified. The last three years have been a steady erosion of our fundamental rights and freedoms by the process of executive orders and other secondary legislation. Now, this is the one that I think might have far-reaching effects. Section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is a fundamental right that cannot be weighed against any other right. Our minds are free to think and thank goodness our conscience is unfettered, or at least Ms Turner's conscience is. She sees wrongdoing by our government and she calls it out. She is protected by our laws. Ms Turner did not exercise her right in the workplace. And she is also protected there by Section 104 of the ERA, by sections described in Section 21 of the Human Rights Act, Section 21. So it's bringing in, you know, how many ways are you protected with your political speech? You're protected under the Bill of Rights Act, you're protected at work under the ERA, but it's described in the Human Rights Act. And we would argue that Section 14, freedom of expression under BORA, is also unfettered by Section 5. Now you remember I was talking about this is a problem when you go through these things with judicial review. And that's what I've said about the other cases, that they should have gone through the employment institutions. But it appears that the employment institutions haven't been asked to look at this because they have been told by the lawyers, or the lawyers have been telling bosses, they can't get you, you know, or not the lawyers have been telling bosses, but perhaps the lawyers have been telling complainants, right? Well, it's no use going to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court because they have no jurisdiction under the Bill of Rights Act. However, it's not jurisdiction under that, it's Section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act that makes it important to take it there. Because Section 6 says that the judiciary, which of course remember is bound by the Bill of Rights Act, must look at any case that involves your rights being infringed upon. They must prefer the principles, if you like, of how to look at that case. So you'd be saying I'm taking it under the Employment Relations Act, but when it gets to the court or the authority, you're bound to judge by the Bill of Rights Act. Even though you're an Employment Court judge, you're still bound, right? Now, if she goes away and thinks about it, because it's going to take a few months I think to come out, she's going to have to agree. The case that they, because it was brought up in the authority, but the other side got away with it there because I picked this case up from another lawyer. I didn't run it in the authority. In the authority, they used the example of, they said, you know, there's cases that say that the DHB or whatever or the government department isn't using, isn't performing a public function when they're, you know, in their employment relations. But that is not, there's been no cases about that. What the cases have been about was, for example, if they were selling some government land or doing maintenance in a school or something, right, and they're writing a contract with another body between the school and, you know, they can't, Bill of Rights Act can't be, can't actually be argued there. But, of course, in educating our children, they are fulfilling a public function. Also, an employment agreement is very different to these other sorts of contracts, right, because your, the teachers, for example, can be affected by, you know, and is exactly what happened. So teachers or nurses or anybody else had their human, had their Bill of Rights Act, had their Bill of Rights things overwritten. And, but, you know, the lawyers hadn't sort of, hadn't sort of thought about it and thought, well, you know, I'm sure there's a way. We didn't look for one. And anyway, so I said to her, I said, there's a paper written by Rodney Harrison QC, if you, you know, about this, if you'd like to see it. So I'm sending her that, so she's interested to see that. Now, that is about, you know, how you actually use the Bill of Rights in an employment situation. I don't think he's a, I know he's a public lawyer. I'm not sure what sort of cases he usually takes. I think he was an Employment Relations Act lawyer. He's one of those real high flyers, so interesting. So that should be, because if we can get a proper ruling on this, it means that you won't have to go. And, and also I told her that Section 5, you can't, there are no group rights under the Bill of Rights Act. Every right is held by an individual, not by a group. So you can't weigh up. So basically all of those cases where, you know, people like Yardley, it's wrongly decided. Yeah, because they use Section 5 and all of that, and the NZSOS cases. I'm saying they're wrongly decided. And I've had the chance to say it in the Employment Court. So, you know, who knows what will happen. But I found it really exhausting. I mean, I'm going to have to go over this paper again. Re, just even do the typos and send it, and redo it. But it's because it was just like, they got a team of four lawyers for their side, and that seems to be pretty standard. And, and, you know, and just one. So, you know, there were a few, there were a few extremely late nights. What a mission, eh? You're such a warrior, Liz, it's amazing. Oh, well, you know, I want, I want to tell you about this stuff. Oh, thank you, Ness, that's the one. That's the one, I think, yeah. Yes, our Heavenly Father oversaw it completely. I was just about dead from exhaustion, but I knew this. Something kept me going. So, yeah, I think it was a great opportunity for us. And I think we won't know for a few months. Could be up to three months. I really hope that she starts to get out there. But in terms of freedom of speech, she's really going to have to make a statement. And see, this is the thing, freedom of speech in the workplace, there's only been one other political speech case, which was the O'Day one. And so, you know, this is an expansion of that idea too, because the O'Day case, I think I've described to you guys before. He was the guy who was part of the Communist Party. And, yeah, that's true, it can be appealed. Or parts of it can be appealed if we, you know, there's parts of it that we don't like. We can take the yeses and go after the noes. But, yeah, so it's an expansion of that idea of what is political speech. It's an expansion of the idea of what is the line that we've got to draw in terms of interference in our lives by the bosses. It's an introduction to the court, to the employment institutions of the idea that they should be hearing. In fact, I'd say they're bound to hear Bill of Rights arguments. They're not hearing them under the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights says that they must, when a Bill of Rights argument comes up, they must hear it and they must hear it, you know, favourably. Oh, and I talked a little bit about the Health and Safety at Work Act, saying, of course, that the DHBs were bound by Section 36 of the Act and they were lacking in there. They didn't go and look at any hazards, you know, the fact that they were bringing the hazard into the workplace. So, of course, this wasn't the case where it was someone turning down the vax because this was prior to that. So we're talking about April. These vaxes didn't get rolled out for the health workers until the November. They had to be vaxed by the 15th of November. So anyone knows, you know, share this video with people in the health community. We've got lots and lots more cases and lots and lots more legal points to make. And so I'll leave it there. And guys, have a look at the article, because you get to be an expert on critical race theory as well as queer theory. And what's the other one? There was another one mentioned too. Yep. OK. So anyone got any stories from this week? Because I've been a sort of, we didn't have Wednesday and I've sort of been lying low, just regathering my stamina. So it's going to be a nice weekend. But we've got loads more, loads more guys. You know, we're just getting them into the authorities and the courts now and they're settling. So the quicker we can settle a whole lot as well, we can bring on more and more cases to get settled. Because we won't get it all done within three years. That's awesome, Liz. I was at a thing on Tuesday night and got talking to an ex-nurse who got the sack and her partner that works at Air New Zealand. And he's gone down the lawyer path with what was a group, I think, of 200. And now it's down to 30 or so because it's costing them so much money. Oh, yeah. We've got an Air New Zealand group and I think they're on not sure. I told them they need their internet. But, you know, it's, yeah, they just run out of money. With the lawyers. I told them that. I said, yeah, for less than a coffee a week. I said you could be, yeah, getting the right legal representation. Yeah. Yeah, it was interesting. Good on you. Oh, and I wanted to say thank you to our member, Helen Wynne, who has printed off us. I'll see if I can show it to you. Oh, yeah. I got back to her about getting some more of those. Some nice, really nice ones. I'm coming down to Dury on Anzac Day. That's going to be so cool. And I'll bring some down. Oh, thanks. So our member printed those off for us. Yep. And my tētēnā buu Christen another extension. I must have heaps of money. My tētēnā getting pretty, pretty anxious, pretty anxious. A bit, eh? Yeah, because every case that we're putting in, we're putting new pressure on. And the word's getting around. It's quite a small legal opportunity in New Zealand. Too small. They're all in each other's pockets. Yeah, I bet. Yeah. So, yeah. Well, we fought the good fight and we will continue. Yep. That's it. Thank you for the letter. Well done. Yeah. Four. Four in the courtroom. And then, of course, the judge is a lawyer as well. But, yeah, well, one of the things I said about, I also talked about our constitution and I talked about that in the opening statements about how our constitution, which is, excuse me, founded on 1688, Bill of Rights, it requires everybody to follow the law. And that includes the legislature, which is Parliament, of course, the executive, which is the Crown, and the judiciary. Right? So nobody gets out of it. So we really hope that, in actual fact, lawyers will start exercising their brains a bit and thinking about going after Parliament, going after, you know, the members of Parliament who let this all go slip by. Yeah? Who must have, who never questioned it. Never questioned it. And, you know, we'll find out eventually how much money they got paid and what their complex of interests were. Yeah. So I was talking to, I was talking to our friend Dora Smith this morning and saying, oh, this is the sort of stuff I was talking about for the strikeout application that's going in, because she's going to talk to the people who are representing Dr. Shelton. Yeah, the DHB have heard a lot of nurses in public, and really, one of the most upsetting things is, oh, but we've got a case coming up for three midwives, and we've got a really excellent researcher in the form of Cathy, and Cathy's going to help me write up the submissions for those, their case, and because they, of course, tried to protect the mothers and the babies. Yeah. And that was one of the hardest, I think. That's one of the hardest to bear, the thought of all of those mums and babies hurt. Yeah. We won't know how bad that's going to be for a couple of years yet, I wouldn't have thought. Yeah. Lisa says, what about any cases for supermarket workers going through? Yeah. Simon and I are working on the countdown one, and yeah, a change of subject here, I heard on the radio. Oh, it's gone. Oh, yeah. Somebody said something about the radio. What's that about? Oh, there's also another where we might be joining up with a platform called Voices Media. So, it's another one on top of, what do they call it in that latest one that's doing quite well? Reality Check Radio. Yeah. Pack and Save cases. Yeah, I don't know if Erica's around. There is something about Pack and Save, I think. Yes, supermarkets. Oh, there was, I was a bully in case somebody sent me. But, you know, as I say, there's not, I heard on the radio that China has dropped all of their dates. I think the Chinese people are about ready for revolution again. It sounds like they get used and abused. I mean, you wouldn't really know, would you? But it does sound like they, yeah. Pack and Save. Yeah. Well, I mean, as I say, three years. The ones who are sort of late in the piece, in a way, they benefit from all of this stuff we learn, all of the new things that are coming up. Even when cases are lost, although I don't admit to losing any cases yet. As I say, I picked this one up off somebody else. But because we've only, the only stuff that's been through the authorities. They're trying, as I think I said in the last Zoom we had, they're trying so hard to keep us out on 90-day arguments all of the time. But I think the authorities are waking up to that. And yeah. So those are being fought. And because it's kind of like they seem to still be trying to confuse somebody over the difference between raising a personal grievance and filing a personal grievance to different things. But we just keep hammering them. We just keep hammering them. And yeah, the settlements, officers' settlements are continuing to come in. Lisa says she was a department manager at Pack and Save, just wondering if anything's happening. Yeah, I think we had a PG for you, didn't we Lisa? I can't remember. The name is familiar, that's for sure. Yeah, I think it was, was it with Debbie? Liz, Taito are New Zealand. Who's are New Zealand? I'm familiar with the Taito Phillip Field case. But I don't know who are would be in New Zealand. Okay. Yeah, I think what's going to have to happen in the end is there's going to have to be a great big truth and reconciliation process like they had in South Africa, right? The end of apartheid. And people are going to have to get compensated. I mean, it's just so much to do. There's so much. There's all of the people that, you know, have been injured. We're still working with, what are they called? Sorry, getting late in the day. The class action. Yeah. ELF, project ELF. Yeah. Yeah. So they'll pick up quite a lot of stuff. We've got a lot of the legal work. Taito versus, oh, okay. It could be as in the state. Okay. No, it wouldn't be Taito Phillip Field then. Yeah. Ellen's case is another one having to go at the authority in this case. And these, you know, really unethical lawyers who run cases just to stop you getting justice. Right. Yeah. And this, you know, this is what we've got. We're fighting, you know, and Ellen's fighting a good fight over at Hamilton. And it's all good because it makes the judges think we're not, you know, people are going to criticize us. And, you know, I think another blow is struck for the fact that it's been, we're going to be talking about section six and the way that when our rights are infringed that we're always going to, we're always going to fight. Now, somebody on Andy said, for compensation, where will the money come from? Taxpayers are so stretched. This is where I want, this is why I want the employers to be put in the picture because I think employers got to get their act together and sue Pfizer. Right. And get some of the, you know, the big money back into this country and then pay out the, you know, pay out the people. Now, that case that was taken in the United States to the Supreme Court, and this is the sort of people who've got, you know, this was taken not by a group of workers, but by a group of small businesses. They, well, you know, very large group, because that take down of the mandate, what was called the Biden mandate, the OSHA mandate. 84 million workers. Right. And they took it because maybe they, they clicked to the fact that in the end, they were going to get sued. Maybe that's why they did it. On the face of it, it looked like they took it because it was going to involve them an extra cost with, you know, to keep their workers. They were going to have to provide them with all sorts of tests and masks and God knows what. You know, so you've got another pack of parasites out there just sucking off the economy with all of these masks and tests and injections, etc. So the medical supplies to people and the pharmacies are the ones making all of the money, but they're sucking it all out of the productive side of the economy. So the productive side of the economy has got to get off its ass and do something. But the, well, you know, the workers are as well, but the business owners, right, don't sit on your hands, business owners. You know, you're getting plenty of clues about what you can do. You know, where are the business owners going after WorkSafe and saying, under section 168 subsection 4, you acted illegally, coming in and asking me about my workforce, right? Not allowed to do it. You need to be sued. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So. Okay. Yeah, well, thanks, Mandy. I've been talking about that a couple of years now. You know, I used to talk about how, I believe, the dominoes would fall. First the workers, then the bosses, then WorkSafe, then the government. Right. But really, we want the liabilities transferred over to the medical, you know, military medical establishment. Yeah. Because that's who we're fighting. Yeah. Okay. Man, I met on Tuesday night, I've been to East Valley and the other one, and he was very angry that the only help was being done by volunteers. He was also very angry about his son-in-law dying of brain cancer very quick, and his wife had had all of the jabs to go and help the daughter. They were both jabbed and would only have jabbed, oh, God, Karen. Yeah, I know. It's like, it is so evil. It is so evil. Read that article. Read that article about the craziness, you know, and you'll get some clues about why we're here. You know, why, what we, the spiritual fight. They don't talk about the spiritual fight, but when you look at it, it's really obvious. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We've got to help our young ones as well. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, just corrupting them to heck. Yeah. Oh, anyways, tell us about what's happening on Anzac Day down in Drury. Oh, yeah, that's with Jeff Smith from the Hamilton group doing good stuff down there. They've bought the Hamilton, they definitely own it now, the Hamilton, what used to be the Hamilton, sorry. Oh, the Bird Park? No, Huntly, the Huntly Courthouse. Oh, the Courthouse. Oh, fantastic. They've bought that, yeah. Oh, how far is it from Drury? It's only a half an hour down the road. It might pop down. Yeah. Yeah, so, yeah, it's at Drury, the meeting, and then, yeah, they've bought that, bought the Courthouse, and they're going to do it all up and use it as a High Court, full High Court. Yeah, so. Great. That's going to be awesome. We're going to have another alternative to, and they've gone through and done a constitution and all sorts of stuff. They really seem to be doing it really properly. Oh, good on them. Yeah. Yeah, we're going to have to have a lot of constitutional discussion, because it's going to be, we have to base it on constitutional principles. Now, what I mean by constitutional principles, and it sounds like a really scary word, and what the hell does that word mean? Basically, the constitution is a set of rules that this society works under, and especially legal rules. Because the law, everything sits on a base of legal rules, and legal rules sit over the top of it. And this is why we've got to cling to something that's been tried and true for a couple of thousand years now. A set of laws based on Western Christian values. What has been happening is not based on Western Christian values. It's based on a load of khaki. And the courts and the lawyers should be ashamed of themselves. What's your views in regards to getting the police to charge my company with blackmail? What? What are they doing, Stephen? Have you had a run in with it? It's at Heather's place, I think. Oh, okay. Right, that's me. Okay. Net keeps going off, does it? Hmm. Yep. So what Steve say? I was mandated coerce. What? Your company was, Stephen. You can come on and talk, Stephen, if you want to. Yeah, yeah, come and have a chat. Just unmute and off you go. I've just muted a couple of people that we get a little bit of background noise, but yeah, we do want you to... I'm just curious, really, obviously, in this stage. I mean, I was mandated to have the job. Obviously, it's a form of coercion and the rest of it, to a degree. I call it a blackmail idea. And I'm just wondering what your view is in regards to that. Sorry, are you saying you think the police blackmailed you? No, no. I think the company blackmailed me because they mandated, coerced me into having the job. It's not blackmail. It's not? No, it's a civil matter. Blackmail is a criminal matter. No, it's bad. I agree, Steve, but it's no good going to the police. Right. What's that? Right. You don't have to sign a consent form to have the job. You're supposed to. I mean, they were all supposed to have a consent form available. Yeah. I think there's a whole lot of medical professionals that need to get themselves, as Jeff would say, get their insurance checked. Because they're in the shed. Yeah. You keep on coming on and off, Linda. I don't know if you're saying anything. Okay. So, it has been the end of a long week. Pretty happy, pretty happy. It's like, you know, I don't know if you guys have ever sat university exams and you just seem to be under constant pressure for weeks and weeks and weeks. And then the last day comes and you just, thank God, that's over. You know, it's almost worth doing it to feel that relief. We were kids, and the last day of the school year, and I think it must have been standard six, and we always had to go over the footbridge over the river to go home, and throwing all our books in the river. No, I've still got this stuff. I've still got this stuff. I'm not throwing it anywhere. Yeah. Just reminded me, someone used the term, the powers that be. There's a very funny lady called the Healthy American. I don't know whether anybody's listened to her on YouTube. And she's got the funniest names for all those things. She calls the jab the cooties, because she's always trying to make sure she doesn't get banned off YouTube. Oh, okay. And she's on YouTube, is she? Yeah. And what does she call the health organisation, the Holocaust, yeah, World Holocaust Organisation. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I can't remember. If you look up the Healthy American. Yeah, I did get a chance to talk a little bit about the Holocaust in my opening subs. I just said that the Nuremberg trials were conducted under English common law, because no other law has got the tools to do it. So the German law, as it stood, didn't have the tools to do it, because it's based on individual rights. We started off with that, if you like, in 1275. Peggy Hall. That's probably it. Oh, Peggy Hall, she's called. The Healthy American. I think that's right. I can't remember. I know it's called. Healthy American's the name of her channel. Yeah, well, the Americans are doing damn well. I saw another article on the Epoch Times as well, about five or six of the states are saying, we're not having any of this mRNA unless it's completely labelled, you know, clearly and strongly labelled, and then people can have a choice if they want to eat it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. They're doing all sorts of horrible things, aren't they, with the food and things. Yeah. I reckon it's not much longer. Okay, guys, I'm going to say goodnight. Yeah, awesome. Thanks so much, Liz. Have a lovely weekend, everyone. Yep, you too. Take a break. Yep, will do. Yeah, and thank you for the team keeping on, everybody going while I was sort of three days out of the four days to end that. It made tonight all the more exciting, waiting to hear what you've been up to. Okay. Lovely. Yep. Thanks, everyone. See you later. Bye. Bye.