Details
3rd May 2023 The Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand The 182 year Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand Update from Liz and Dora about the letter of objection to proposed chances to legislation that stipulates who has to be appointed to a school BoT. The powers that shouldn't be are attempting to normalise what amounts to child pornography and child abuse in schools. We must stop this disgusting situation!
Comment
3rd May 2023 The Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand The 182 year Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand Update from Liz and Dora about the letter of objection to proposed chances to legislation that stipulates who has to be appointed to a school BoT. The powers that shouldn't be are attempting to normalise what amounts to child pornography and child abuse in schools. We must stop this disgusting situation!
Listen to N8WUNZ 20230503 (W) The Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand by N8WUNZ MP3 song. N8WUNZ 20230503 (W) The Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand song from N8WUNZ is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 01:29:35. This high-quality MP3 track has 512 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 7 May 2023. Stream and download N8WUNZ 20230503 (W) The Anniversary of Common Law in New Zealand by N8WUNZ for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
The main ideas from this information are: 1. The speaker discusses the history of New Zealand's constitution, which is based on the constitution of 1688. They mention the New Zealand Company and the establishment of the legal and political systems in the country. 2. They talk about a recent court case involving a woman with PTSD who filed a complaint against the Crown for failing to provide a safe workplace. The court ruled that she was not too late to file the complaint, as it falls under Section 142 of the Employment Relations Act, which allows for a six-year time frame. 3. The speaker then discusses the Ministry of Education's attempt to introduce sexual education materials that they consider to be highly sexualized and inappropriate for children. They mention a document from the WHO that suggests introducing sexual activity from the age of five. They also mention their plans to fight against this through submissions and strategies outlined in Section 83 of the Health and Safety Okay. Right, we're okay. Okay, so 182 years. 3rd of May, 1841. It's not a number that you would have heard of. Not a date you would have heard of. You've heard me talk about various dates before a lot. This is why we can hold this, hold the feet to the fire. So we have a constitution based on 1688. First time the king or the queen or whoever was made accountable to a constitution. You can call it the company constitution if you like, because that's the way they seem to have run it down the years. Another little thing, I'll tell you about why that date is the correct date. But New Zealand Company you might have heard of, and I think maybe that's what the company's office is actually standing in front of. We spell it C-O-M-P-A-N-Y-E-S, but it could be Y-E-S as in New Zealand Company. The magazine of the New Zealand Company was the New Zealand Gazette, where we get all of the interesting, interesting stories or everything that we've found recently about where there should have been notices, there were no notices. All of the interesting notices that there were that tell us who did what and who didn't do what. So 182 years. Why do I say that? November 1841, the letters patent established the courts, but it wasn't until the ship arrived that we actually got the bits of paper. You can go to a website, which I'll put it on later, we can put it up later. The website where you can find it, and you can actually see the piece of paper. So it's a physical piece of paper, and it's got all of the way that we had the first charter back in 1840. And then we had the second charter in 1840. It's also in 1840, but it's in November 16th of November, that's right. So then it was on a ship on its way here, separated us out from Australia, established the legal system, the justice system, two different things actually, and the political system. So, you know, set up the, I guess it was the two Houses, we had two Houses of Parliament, we had House of Representatives, and we had the Legislative Council anyway, they were the ones who put together the various laws etc. They were pretty much following British law. So we had, that's why we followed down right from 1275, English common law from 1275, first statute of Westminster. You can see all of the particulars of all of the laws that apply under, firstly, in Section 5 of the Imperial Laws Application Act, and the rest of them, which are the more historical ones, that need to be interpreted under common law. And equity are in the first schedule of that Act, the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. So, of course, many of you are familiar with Section 5 of that Act, which says that the common law and equity survive. So, no matter what they decided they were going to do, whether we would be sailing on as a republic or constitutional monarchy, which seems a little strange, but never mind, or anything else, we still can rely on that. And that law, of course, holds every person to account, holds the Parliament, holds the executive, and holds the judiciary and the police and the army all to account. So, yeah, we don't have to worry that we have to make it all up again. So, that was just because it was the third of May today that I thought, apparently they had a big party, everybody was really, really pleased that they finally could actually set up courts because there was a lot of land transactions going on. People wanted to, you know, check out a lot of what had been going on, you know, and get something down on paper. Right. Now, the other things, of course, tonight are a couple of things about what's going on with the cases, some extremely good news. I think it's good news anyway. On Saturday morning, I was doing some work, and I got sent a case to look at, and it was about something that happened back in 2013, the Springhill prison riots. The case involved a woman who had PTSD, is that what it's called? Post-traumatic stress syndrome. She didn't take personal grievance at the time, because I'd say, you know, looking at it, it doesn't give you any details, but I'd say, of course, it didn't show up within 90 days. I'd say that. So she was a member of a union, a member of TANZ, one of the prison unions, and TANZ brought the action in March of 2019. So the riots happened in June of 2013. The action was brought to the courts in March of 2019. The Crown, in the form of corrections, was trying to say, you're too late. But, of course, the actual decision was that, no, they weren't too late, because anything that's brought under it's not a personal grievance. It's under Section 142, but it is under the ERA. It is under the Employment Relations Act. So it gives you six years. Six years instead of 90 days to raise it. So there's some really good stuff in there. It's based on a common law. It's what's called a common law action or an action of the common law. Common law never went away. You have actions that you can bring under statutory enactments, or you can have actions brought under the common law. In this case, it's a contractual part of common law. So the complaint that she brought under common law was that corrections had failed to provide a safe workplace. Now, isn't that good news? Because we have had a lot of, let's say, a lot of barriers put in our way and a lot of time taken up with trying to get over this 90-day rule. We have succeeded, and it's brought us a lot of the authorities starting to look very askance at the lawyers who keep bringing the 90-day, 90-day, 90-day, pretending that even things that are brought up in time and filed, saying, oh, there's not enough particulars. We don't know what you're talking about, basically. It's pretty hard to believe, isn't it? And they say, oh, we don't know what you're talking about. And you didn't tell us what you were talking about before 90 days. So we want it struck out, basically. Well, you know, I hope some of them are watching tonight. Please feel free to go and tell any of them. Well, sorry, we will just substitute an action under section 142 of the Act and still be in the Employment Relations Authority and in the Employment Court. And away we go. So we expect that we'll be clearing the backlog a lot quicker, being able to bring in cases that we've been thinking, we need to get on with this, but it's not quite ready yet. We need stronger arguments, et cetera, et cetera. We've got this case that was decided. It's not a 2019 case because there was a lot of opposition to it, obviously. And the decision only got made on the 27th of January this year. So it's only been two months, just over two months old. And it was probably mere chance because I was looking at something else. I was sent it by my colleague and she said, oh, can you have a look at the remedies here? There was also other stuff in it that pretty much puts the lie to all of that rubbish about, well, we didn't know what you're talking about. You know, we couldn't do anything. We couldn't do anything about it. Now you're too late. Because the authority member says, yeah, it's quite clear. You had meetings. You had Zoom calls. You knew what the subject matter was, basically. OK, so that's great news. We also, of course, and I don't know if Dora started talking to you about how we're getting on with our latest big push, which is to take both criminal and civil action over the horrible, horrible attempts by the system, by the Crown, to introduce an excuse for pedophilia in our school curriculum. So Dora, do you want to report on how we're getting on on that? Because you've been mostly involved in that. So I paused doing a notice of concern and finished the, or worked on the submissions. So during the week I was sent a private message from someone alerting me that the Ministry of Education was seeking submissions to a new bill. And the new bill under Clause 38 was basically the gateway, or there's probably a lot more, but one of the stepping stones to being able to continue the attempt to bring in what I would consider child pornography. And it's already been in schools where they've had what I would consider pornographic material, where they've got, and I'm talking about children, I'm not talking about teens, I'm talking about, you know, early entrants, all the way through the primary range. Where the books talk about sexual activity with their friends and or with their father, that it's okay, et cetera, et cetera. And the UN education, sorry, I've got out of, I wasn't ready Liz, how dare you. And the UN has provided, the UN through WHO, has provided a text, and in that text it's got the year that they introduced the different forms of sexual education. And they're calling it education, I call it pornography. So the document is the International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. And they're stating it's an evidence-informed approach, which I would challenge where they got that evidence from when we consider the statistics around children have been sexually violated or have been exposed to pornographic material. And the end result is adults, the mental health that they've suffered, the suicides, the attempted suicides, the depression, the anxiety. But in this particular guidance, it talks about introducing sexual activity from the age of five. So from the age of five, and I believe it starts at four, where they start talking about encouraging them that it's okay to touch themselves. And they're also saying that their belief is when a child starts school they should already have a sexual partner. And so this book is allegedly to assist schools in how to promote sexual partners beginning with the age of five. So the category is five to eight, nine to twelve. So being aware of that guideline that WHO had put out and the United Nations had put together and put to all the schools, I believe that's the great big push that we're seeing in the Ministry of Education. And equally disturbing is that the persons who are assisting to write this into legislation aren't even qualified as educators, teachers, and they're not even educated in the area of child protection and child abuse. They are experienced transgender or experienced in their chosen sexuality, and so they're based on that. So there's no real quantitative or qualified persons writing it other than the sexualized drive and agenda that they're trying to put into schools and calling it diversity, using interchangeably the word sex or sexes and gender, providing no interpretations of it. And so really the way that it's worded could be opened up quite vastly to what we see in this guideline in the recommended sexualized program. And it is highly sexualized. I wouldn't call it mild. I would say it's highly sexualized. I would say it's pornographic in nature. If a child's looking at a book on how to have anal sex or how to give anal sex or that it's okay that it might hurt for a little while but you might enjoy it afterwards over a young age, that's pornographic. They're calling it educational. Now if I, as a parent, sat down and spoke to my children or read a book of that nature, I'd most likely be charged with a criminal offense. I'd have my children removed from me, but they put it under the guideline of education and suddenly they have the misguided belief that that exempts them from the Crimes Act and from the Vulnerable Children's Act and the Children's Act and the Oranga Tamariki Act. And those specific acts which were designed to protect our children from being exposed to this type of behavior, material, and yet they seem to think, well, it's okay because it's part of the education. Well, no, we don't agree. So I spent quite a bit of time and I believe, Liz, they're going to put that submission on the website, number eight website? Yes, yes. Emma, I'm sorry, I should have sent it over to you. That's okay, that's okay. I'm happy to do it. Actually, can you send it over to Emma now, Dora? Is it possible? You can put the link in the chat, maybe. I can put it in the chat. They're trying to say, you know, we have to be tolerant. Well, no, I don't want to be tolerant of my children learning sexualized content. There has to be a form of inclusion. Well, actually, as it stands, there's already a scope to include children and families in a very confidential nature that you wouldn't know that that family or that child had a preference. I'll just put it in the chat window if you wanted to grab it and pull it down. Whereas the introduction of the new amendment wouldn't give that confidentiality, the whole school would find out who the family or the child is. And, you know, school's hard to survive for some children, you know, without being targeted. Did you send it to me, Dora? I put it in the chat here. Yeah, it hasn't come up. It does this sometimes. It says, click to open. Yeah, and I'm not seeing it. Where was it? Because you posted it. Did you post it in the little chat? Did you send it to me, Dora? I'll see if I can find it. Oh, it's to Jeffrey. Jeffrey, you were the lucky one. I just sent it to everybody. Here we go. Do it again. I don't know why it was just Jeffrey. Oh, it does that. It was preset to Jeffrey. There you go. You should have it. Yeah, got it. Do you want me to share screen it? Sure. And so we've already been contacted by teachers and we've engaged with some schools about what they can do to fight back. And, you know, we looked at the schools, these two schools who are Christian schools, because they refused to introduce the sexualized program, they're having to look at closing down. But we're saying, well, actually, no, the schools are asking you or the Ministry of Education is suggesting that you act in a criminal nature. And it impacts upon several, a few acts. And so you have to protect yourself from being liable, from being criminally charged by family. And so that's part of the notice. So we're doing the notice to be able to inform the schools. This is our intention. Oh, yes. So there it is there. Hopefully there's not too many typos. That makes it real. It was a pretty tight time frame, wasn't it, Dora? We had, what, three days? Yeah, but, you know, three days that included, you know, other events. Travelling to Auckland? Yeah, and all interesting stuff like that. But, you know, we always get, we always get enough time, it seems, you know, when we have to do something like this and we're under pressure, we always get enough time. So this was promised. The other thing was, of course, the, and this is sort of going to form the basis of Dora's notice of concern. So we can use all of these documents over and over in different sorts of ways. The other thing that was promised was that we would have a strategy of using the Health and Safety at Work Act to go after them, go after the schools and support our teachers who wanted to resist. Now, that hasn't been put together yet. We need to inform people so that, you know, we've got people coming up and they're going to have to join the union. It's not a problem because we need to be able to get them behind them once they, if they have any pushback on this. So we've got a chat in Facebook. There's a thread there and I think it's called Section 83 in school. I think it's called something like that. You couldn't put many words in. Is that correct, Dora? We've got probably 20 people who are regularly coming on and talking about different things there. We want it to be able to be used as a, so people can, you know, see where people are living. You know, you can ask somebody, I'm living in so-and-so, are you anywhere near me or anybody, you know, who's near me? Can we meet up? Can we start to talk about how, are we teachers, you know, any teachers? We want to, we want the community to get together and tell the teachers, right, we're here to support you and we've got a plan, right? So that's started on its merry way. And then the action plan about how to implement Section 83 will come to pass. We also, of course, you'll see from that, that submission that we've asked to be heard personally. So even if we have to go to Wellington, we'll go and speak on behalf of the union for you guys. What else did we have to do? Oh, yes, we've got, people have been private messaging. There's somebody that I've still got to get back to that have other groups, right, quite significant numbers in those groups that have been wondering what to do about this as well. It's been pretty, pretty, well, pretty high profile amongst us who have got our antennae up. Anyway, we are meeting with, I won't name the school, a Christian school tomorrow to talk to them about pushing back as a school on the Ministry of Education. Also, there's been our favourite, our favourite warrior, Karlene, has been on Facebook this past week. She's got a great style of going through. It's a document that's been put together by, well, they call themselves international jurists. So jurists are basically people who talk about the law, who inform courts, inform judges about, you know, what sort of things they should be supporting and what they think is a good idea for the law. Their idea is that there are some areas of criminality that include sex reproduction, homelessness and poverty, right, that need reform because there are groups of people in these areas that are, that are the victims of human rights abuses, right. Basically, they are saying, in not so many words, that paedophilia should be decriminalised because it's a human right. Whether they're saying the paedophiles are the victims of the human rights abuse, misunderstood or something, or that the children are because they're not getting the chance to have sex because they're, you know, as it says in, I think I put up that comment that somebody had made in the Rumble video, on the Rumble video about sort of the apologist for the paedophile, that, you know, children are born as sexual beings and da, da, da, da, and they have the right and all of this crap, which is basically, looks like what the, what is, what these people who call themselves jurists are talking about. Yes, Susan, I see that you watch Carleen's series because it's great. She goes through it bit by bit and she puts her interpretation on it and I think it's a very good interpretation. I think she's, I'm just going to turn my computer on, plug my computer and I see it's, I haven't plugged it in. Sorry, battery was running. Yeah, so she was, she was saying, Carleen who? Carleen, I think her second name is Carleen Louise, she is on Facebook. Carleen Louise she is on Facebook. Yeah, yeah. Now she, Carleen was, she might even be here. Oh, there she is. Good, good picture. There you go. And so Carleen was doing the Tua, which I can't remember what was it called? What was it called? The Tua Hekoi? They Save Our Children, or you're probably, Save Our Children Hekoi, right? That's her. Okay, so she's got a great, great style. She leeches better than a whole lot of people who were at law school. And she's a bit puzzled about how poverty and, poverty and homelessness come in. You know, it could be something like, well, you've got to leave people to live on the streets. You know, you shouldn't be interfering in their human rights by, you know, they just want to be diverse. You know, you shouldn't interfere and ban any drugs, you know, or anything. Or shouldn't, you know, you shouldn't leave these, leave these diverse drug pushers alone. You never know what the hell they're thinking of. That would be my, in light to dark, yeah. That would be my guess, right? So Carleen's a very good watch. And you kind of, it's forming, I guess it's forming, it's forming the consciousness of the alternative, you know, the alternative media, right? So many things that you couldn't have talked about are now being talked about. And it's absolutely essential that adults, you know, actually act like adults and say, it's up to us to protect the children. Yeah. And you can see from the stories that are coming up that in the past, the authorities are charged to do this. Like Oranga Tamariki, especially, I mean, that's where the finger gets pointed, and rightly so, have not protected children, have not protected children. The law protects them. The Oranga Tamariki is, that's why they get paid. They work under that Act, but they don't, it's just like WorkSafe. You've got all of this, you know, all of this machinery of the state, and all it does, it seems to keep people in work by continuing, letting the abuse continue and not bringing the perpetrators to book. Yep. Because in the end, they might run out of people, wouldn't they? You know, they might run out of a job. So that's, you know, pretty exciting times. We seem to have going to be landed ourselves with a hang of a lot more work than we mentioned at the beginning of this year. Yeah, that's right. So, yeah, but all, you know, when you're at war, it's not pretty. Sometimes it's not pretty. It's not, you know, well, you know, let's all get dressed up in a funny costume and parade about. You know, or come out once for a demonstration and then say, I've done my bit. No, no, this is it. We don't, it's the battle we cannot lose. We cannot lose. Yep. Okay, guys, so that's about it from me. So, you know, please, please tell us if you'd like to go on. Anybody want to share anything or ask a question? Trouble is it takes two years now. You could buy, you could make a gun while you wait. Yes. Apparently, you can make them out of those printers now. You know, the plastic printers. Oh, yeah, 3D printers. Who was it that killed the Prime Minister of Japan? Wasn't that a gun that had been printed or a 3D printer? Oh, was it? I don't know. Oh, Robyn's got her hand up there. Oh, she's gone now. Did you change your mind? They're only one use, are they? You still need a propellant. Well, once you've, yeah. There is that game Airsoft. Sorry? There is that game Airsoft that uses guns. Oh, okay. You don't need live ammunition. Yeah, well, you know, we fly close to the edge if we talk about guns, probably. Paintballs, paintballs, yeah. Yeah, good, good, good, good. But yeah, it seems like, you know, it's like the hundredth monkey, if they call it that. Everything that comes up on my feed now is, you know, people exposed. Jeff has got his hand up. Jeff's got his hand up. Where are you going, Jeff? I just wanted you to confirm something that you mentioned tonight, Liz, and spoke about before, and that's that, is it the 1688 Act? The 1688 Act, it's a Bill of Rights. Yeah, where it states that Protestants can bear arms. Oh, yes, of course it does, of course it does. So that needs to be spoken of. Yes, it does. But that is still valid in New Zealand. Yes, of course. Yes, yes, yes, yes. We couldn't, if we didn't have the 1688 and our rights against the Crown. So basically, William and Mary came back to the throne as constitutional monarchs. Okay, so they are limited by our rights, our rights, the, you know, the individual rights. Because I took your word on that, and I went and had another look at that Imperial Laws Act, which is very interesting. And I have actually made a start on a fairly comprehensive OIA to try and get confirmation that 1688 is still valid, and the section about bearing arms is part of it. And so why do we need a firearms license, basically? Yeah, that's a great OIA. I love it. Yeah, that's a good idea, Geoff. It's in there as a draft, I just haven't finished it off yet. I'm still fighting the cops over that. The Protestant churches are going to be overflowing. The Protestant churches are going to be overflowing. Yeah, that's right. I just wanted to confirm that with you before I got onto it again. Okay, thanks, Liz. Very good, thank you. Yeah, because, Liz, sorry, just to butt in with that, the firearms licenses, they're putting the prices up so that the poorer people can't afford firearms licenses or to hunt and feed their families, is the trick they're currently playing. So I have an interest, Geoff, in that too, if you want to keep me looked in. The thing is, too, that I think that the 1688 might even, well, not the 1688 so much, but if you go back to the Magna Carta, that has got a load of rights contained in the part of the Magna Carta that is listed in that schedule. And there is something about you cannot overcharge people for, you know, anything, basically. You know, all of the stuff that the Crown tries to, you know, fines, etc. The fines have got to be limited to a certain amount. You can't corporatise people with fines. So this is, for example, if you become bankrupt, you are still allowed to, I mean, you can become bankrupt, but you are still allowed to do your business or do your work that provides you with an income. And I believe Donald Trump has been bankrupt a number of times. And so although they could take property, they couldn't afford, well, there's another thing about that too, they can't take, you know, your stuff that you have in your house. You're not allowed to take any household goods. And they also may not take your means of making a living. So your tools of your trade, basically. The other thing about, I was going to ask about bankruptcy. Oh, it's gone out of my head. But, yeah, so, you know, those fines that they were putting on people for opening their businesses, far too big. They should be challenged in judicial review. We're going to be using the 1688 in all of these judicial review cases, etc. Right. Hi, Robin. Yeah, hi. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh, cool. We've had a bit of a storm here and my computer won't connect, but my phone is and I've just figured out how to unmute myself. Did you guys see my post? I was actually working on the council's human rights claim and I was searching slavery. And one of the bits of legislation that came up was the Geneva Convention Act 1950 something. And it says Schedule 6, Part 3, 2. Actually, I think it might be Schedule 4 either way. Children shall be provided with the care and aid they require. They shall receive education, including religious and moral education, in keeping with the wishes of their parents or in the absence of their parents, of those responsible for their care. And I wonder if that might be a piece of legislation, one of the many hiding that we could be using for the schools. Great. I love it. And what is that? So that's called the Geneva Convention Act? 1958. I've got Schedule 6, Part 2, 3a, but I don't think that's right. I think it's 4, 3a. We'll be looking at that Act and we'll have lots of ideas. This is what I love about the Zooms. People come up with all sorts of ideas. Many brains make light work. Yeah, well, I know this is not international law. It's regarding international war. It is around war, but it's still the same principle. So I can't see that we can't use that. Sorry to interrupt, but did you find that on New Zealand legislation? Yes, and I found it because I was looking up slavery and I just scrolled down a bit further and managed to see it. And I thought, oh, my goodness, this is totally relevant. Yeah, and so she had someone in an official position who managed to get in an official position in the election. And she's doing an amazing job. And she was going to meet with a local high school that's totally sold out to this transgender agenda and the sexualization of the children. And she was going to approach. And so I went through a whole ton of the legislation with her. The Imperial Rules Application Act and so on and this one and said to her, you know, so essentially she was going to go in. And then once this notice gets done, I was just kind of wondering if this is something that could go on the notice. And once the notice is in this local area, we're going to get a ton of people to serve the schools. So I guess we're just waiting on that being developed and then we can play around with it ourselves for local. Well, there you are, Dora. I just I had hoped to get it out by Monday, but because of the other news that we heard that we had to the first to make those submissions, that notice went on hold. And I travelled to Auckland and back and so I needed to rest because I'm, you know, not young anymore. There's not many young ones on here, Dora. But no, I just wonder if you could use that. And of course, whether that notice could be in a format that we can add our local a little bit to by putting in the board members. And I was going to send it out as a generic one so that it was just basically going to say, what have I written on there? Do you remember? Attention, principal, principal. And then basically the idea was, so it's got board of trustees, PTA, etc, etc. The idea was obviously we have written principal that individuals could uplift or delete that and put the actual principal's name. But I would still include the title. The reason why I make this advice, I've done this. I've been doing this type of stuff for many years. Now, one of the tactics that's used by the state and by experienced businesses is that if you address a person's name, they can be stood down and someone else can be put to that position. Now, you've addressed it to that particular person who no longer lives there. Oh, sorry, works there. So if you have addressed it to Joe Bloggs and Joe Bloggs no longer works there, then that letter is only for Joe Bloggs. That's his personal mail. But if you keep it to titles, then it's whoever's in that role. Which is principal of the such and such school or board of trustees of the such and such school, is that what you mean? So if the school was named Avon School, to the principal of Avon School or to the Avon School principal, however you want to word it, to the Avon School board of trustees. So there's no names attached to it. And the other thing it does is it removes it from being what could be perceived as a personal attack. Oh, yes. Because you're sticking it to titles. And the last thing we want people to feel is that we're going after them personally. No, that's not what it is. It's those particular roles that those titles carry, the duties that they carry with it. And I think someone mentioned up here the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a child. Yes, absolutely. That's another one. So, yeah, feel free to email number eight and they will forward whatever information that you feel would be helpful towards putting this together. And we'll consider that because it just might well be that we've already kind of got stuff ready in there, but it doesn't hurt to have more than one eyes. I just wanted to touch on something you mentioned before, Liz, about businesses being fined. So we got a few businesses here in Taranaki that's being fined horrendously. And they've just said, no, we're not paying. And they have had the bailiff turn up. And they said, nah, that's just a piece of paper with dots and lines. So they refused. He said, well, we've got to serve you this. He said, I'm not interested in that. No, no, I'm not fine with it at all. And they said, well, you've got to pay your fine. He said, no, I'm not fine with it at all. He said, but this is your fine. No, I'm not fine. Way to go. And anyway, they left eventually. And it's been several, like, I can't remember. There's so many days in which they've got to pursue that default payment. They were there for the default payment of the first fine. Now, there's a specified time in the court rules when you're pursuing that type of thing. And they haven't been around to see these businesses for months. And so technically, in law, under those court rules, that time frame has kind of lapsed. Anyway, so they're there to collect on the default bailiff and the police. I don't know why they want to go to businesses with police and bailiffs at a time where our economy is at the most lowest and trying to gather this revenue. Anyway, he hasn't seen them for a couple of months. They haven't been back. Fantastic. But I did go and personally speak to them and said there's actually a remedy in the district court rules. I don't want to talk about it here. That they can use if the bailiff does turn up to seize property. And I'll mention that too. I haven't talked to Liz about it first. And I actually know it works because I've done it myself. That's what we like. First-hand knowledge. Very good. Yeah. And you can kind of, you know, you sort of think, oh, how did that get in here? But when you think back to, you know, our rights, the way this country's legal system was founded and what it was founded upon, you've got to go back, right, to 1275 to 1297, which is Magna Carta. One of the Magna Cartas, because of course they're always back and forth with the Crown trying to get some justice out of them. Yeah. Also, I had a call during the week from a business in Rotorua who was saying, oh, the bailiff has left me something under the door. You know, what do I do now? He had to go and get his child from school or something. So I said, well, send me a photo. So I sent me a photo. I called up the bailiff. And I said, you know, he actually wants to, he wants to pursue this in court, you know. And so the bailiff said, well, he probably needs to get hold of WorkSafe then, right, and tell them. Because he said, it's like a parking ticket, he said. Because it said on it, you know, something about we can cancel your licence or we can do something else. And I said, well, what about this? And he said, oh, he said, no, that's not what we do. He said, I'll tell you what, is he going to argue it? And I said, yeah, he is. He said, I'll give him, you know, I'll just won't bother for a couple of weeks. And we'll, you know, we'll, but let's, you know, I suppose, keep in touch. I've got his number now. So, yeah, but I'll be interested in that remedy in the district court rules too. Very interesting. But what I had, what of course we're going to use if we do ever get caught on these things, is Section 168.4 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. WorkSafe, as in every other regulator or every other administrator under an Act, has to follow the rules of the Act to the dot and tittle. OK, so under Section 168, you'll remember that they are not allowed to make any inquiries about the individual health status of anybody. So if businesses are being attacked because they didn't display this or that, or they had people, they refused to get vaxxed and kept on working, or they had, they refused to push the staff around. No records are allowed to be gathered, stored, inquired after by WorkSafe, right? So WorkSafe, by doing what they've done, have actually also lost their protection from liability because it was done under the 2020, they did all of this stuff under the 2020 Act, which was, I think it's Section 34 of that Act. You go back and have a look at that. It says they've got protection from all sorts of things, right? But it then refers you to Section 134 of the Health Act 1956, and you'll find in there that, yes, it does, but it has to be exercised in good faith or without, and not recklessly. Otherwise, they lose all their protection. OK, so they have put themselves, WorkSafe have put themselves in a very invidious position. Right. OK, Geoff, have you come back to us about the guns? No, I'm going to look into that more. It's an interesting thing. First of all, I sent a couple of messages to Dora. She's obviously busy. Dora, I know you're a busy lady. If you could spare me a bit of time, some time to have a quick chat, it would be greatly appreciated. The other thing, you mentioned about the cops turning up with the bailiffs. Now, that, as I understand it, is a civil matter, and so the cops have got no involvement anyway. So it does beg the question, how come they were there? They've been acting like thugs all over Taranaki to all the businesses that haven't engaged in the unlawful requests. And they have been turning up at some times with two police officers or a police officer and a bailiff. And luckily, so I hold Wānanga Night, and I've been educating the businesses on what to say. This is a civil matter. You need to leave. You're trespassing. Good. Okay. I thought that was the case. It is a civil matter, and if they want to pursue it, the other party wants to pursue it, then there's the civil court that's available to them. They have to pursue it. Just like every other person who's pursuing civil matters in the civil jurisdiction has to be done the proper way. They can't use police as thugs. And so I had drafted up a notice as well, which they served on the police to remind them of their duties and ask them to leave immediately, and they weren't allowed into the property. So every business owner met with them, that I had privy to be able to sit down and talk to them, because I'd roll up and I'd park it right outside their business and they'd be hovering around, just to make a scene, I suppose, and it wouldn't just be, you'd have the two officers that would come in with the WorkSafe person or with the bailiff or whoever, and down the street you'd have two other police cops, police vehicles with two police officers in each one, as if there's going to be some sort of massive riot or something. So that's when they came to me and I said, this is what we'll do. So I encouraged them and they were quite fearful, but I said, you can't be in fear. This is your business. This is your livelihood. So go out onto the footpath and greet them on the footpath so that it's got absolutely no right of entry into the business. Lock it as you leave. You can hear that. And I also did a, you're going to love this, I also did a safety form, a WorkSafety form. And so the first question is, what's your name? What's your address? Where do you work? Have you visited another business premise before this? Did that premise and the occupants in it test positive? Have you tested positive? I believe that, were you wearing the same clothing? Yes, no, you are wearing the same clothing. Well, I believe that you're now contaminated. Do you have a change of clothes as the proper, you know, the get up? So we have the gowns here, but you'll have to purchase them because it comes at a cost. Could you please sign here? You do realise you're taking up my business time, so your insurance will need to cover the cost of my loss of business. So I did a whole lot of occ health and safety questions based around, were you at other premises? Are they the same shoes that you were wearing at the other premises? I love it. Are you aware of the government's concern of cross contamination? So you're suggesting you're going to leave that business and come into mine and possibly cross contaminate. This is unacceptable. Surely you take your job seriously. Did you wash your hands? Yeah, you need to. So we got them a little get up. Street theatre. Street theatre. This is ridiculous. And they said, no, no, no. You believe in the mandate. I want to support you in your position. So here's your shoe covering and your outfit covering and your hair net. And you need to wear a proper mask. You don't have a proper mask. You're now exposing our bubble. And the police officers were just, didn't know what to do. They didn't get that training. And they basically just said to the work officers, the WorkSafe officers, we're not stopping you from entering the property. We're simply doing a risk assessment. A health and safety risk assessment under the Health and Safety Act. Are you familiar with that? So I've done this template and you can see them going, what? And they'd be like, no, no, no. You've been going around from business to business. How many businesses have you visited? And now you want to expose my clientele. So we just basically meet them at the same level. It's kind of fun, actually. That's awesome. That's really awesome. Yeah. That's how we did it here for most of us. And then, because you had to have a sign that was visible. So there was no specification about the sign. So I just said, well, just get a business card. Stick it up six feet up on the window. And if they say blah, blah, blah, blah, well, there it is. The other thing, too, of course, was that, and I don't know if you've seen those, where we talked about what were called the non-CBC rules. They're actually in the traffic light schedules. And the non-CBC rules were that you told people, we don't follow CBC rules. That was the basis of it. And then all of the stuff about how close people could sit to each other, etc. was left up to the business. Just like that. And it was like, well, but what about the CBC rules? Right, fine. The people who want to do those, go for it. You know, fill your boots. The people who didn't, there was non-CBC rules as well. To be honest, there's nothing if not except on certain things that have slipped up badly, like authority to do stuff that's slipped up badly. But in the minutiae, they've been pretty minute. But yeah, it was all about choice. It was all about choice in the end. What you chose, guys. Always choose carefully. And always choose the right thing. Okay. Are we all good now? I was just going to say, one of the questions that the Hamilton Common Law Group are asking the police is, do they have, you know, in the case of speeding fines or being stopped or whatever, does the police have a contract with Land Transport New Zealand? And apparently they don't. So there's no link there as to, yeah. So when you get your ticket, you didn't get a Land Transport New Zealand officer with the authority to issue tickets? Potentially. Okay, so the ticket came out of where? Yeah. Yeah, it's all enough to make your head spin, isn't it? But yeah, thank you guys for taking so much notice of getting things right for our kids. In the end. Yeah, that's going to be awesome. Get that notice out there and give people a mission to really crank that through the schools. Before we go. Yes. I have just posted in the chat the official announcement from the White House ending the COVID thing on the 11th of May. So now unjabbed international travellers like me can go back to the States after the 11th of May without having to provide any proof of vaccination. And that's the official announcement that I've posted in the chat. So anybody knows anybody, send it to them. Okay, so if I want to go to the States now, I'm all good. This is my printed out version. Hey, what was the story? So people who were Americans and unjabbed couldn't go. People who were. What was it? No, if you're a citizen and if you have a green card, you were fine. If you were a non-citizen unjabbed, then you had to get jabbed. Okay. But that's gone now. Right, officially. From the 11th. Yes. So last year Naomi went back because she's a citizen. No jab, no mask, no problem. But I couldn't because I'm not jabbed and all the rest of it. But now I can. So that's really good news. It is good news. It is good news. And, you know, I guess, you know, we regarded, we feel a sense of relief when this stuff happens. But, you know, what are we going to be feeling like when we win and we get real justice against these perpetrators. Congratulations. Fantastic. It's going to be a great year. Freedom. Freedom. Lara's keen on, what, you're off to the States now to get a gun, Lara? Okay. Yeah, well, see, the thing is, too, that they tried to make everybody's poorest church mice so that they didn't go anywhere and buy anything. Yeah, I'm pretty keen for a firearm, to be honest. Nobody's going to mess with my family and my home. Yeah, if we get a free one, that'd be awesome, too. Yeah, true. I looked at the code during the situation, a few hundred K's from New Plymouth. So we had to think, I revisit the situation and do the course. And they changed all to mandated. Then they were doing the courses locally, but we knew bigger hoops to jump through. Anyhow, it all left me feeling somehow deflated. So I can't get hold of frag mines off Trade Me. I will be digging a trench around the flat with puggy sticks. What are puggy sticks? Sharp pointed sticks. Oh! That sounds like Back to the Future. Like a bear trap kind of thing, is it? Where the pointy sticks are pointing upwards. The interesting thing with the firearms is out of the States, you're making the point that you're governed by consent. And if you don't have the right to overthrow a government, then you're not. How can you consent? Yeah, but they based that on their constitution. We've got one, too. It predates theirs. It's OK. 1688, they got theirs in the war. After the revolution, they got theirs in 1776. We got ours in 1688, a hundred and something years before them. The interesting thing is we're seeing a major shutdown of firearms shops of the retailers. And the prices are going up through the roof. So unless you're wealthy, you won't be able to afford firearms in New Zealand, surely. Well, you know, I don't know if there was ever a... Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, the thing is... Well, that's old English law, though. Because, I mean, back, it depended on how wealthy you were and what guns you could have in the old English law. Yeah. Well, it always has, in terms of that sort of defending of your rights. And, you know, we're being pushed around in terms of the courts trying to get lots of money off us for costs of this and costs of that and everything else. But we're working on that, too, because, you know, it's called English common law because it's common, right? It's not the elites. OK? It's the common person. And the common man and woman. Are we covered by their constitution? No, we're not, Robin. But the New Zealand Government Corporation is registered in New York Stock Exchange, right? Yeah, but that's just the market, right? The New York Stock Exchange, exchanging stocks, right? Bonds. It's nothing to do with the law of the land. That's all maritime stuff, right? Yeah, but all businesses in New Zealand are subsidiaries of the New Zealand Government Corporation. So if the New Zealand Government Corporation is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, then isn't it a subsidiary of the US Government Corporation? No. Because the stock exchange is not the government. It's just the stock exchange, right? Well, just saying it like, well, we registered our children, does that mean they belong to the government? No, it does not. OK? It does not mean that at all. They can act as if it does. We have the law to protect us against stuff like that. Like, you know, the Baby Will case. The most important part of that case, really, was the guardianship of that baby. That was, even though that baby probably, you know, probably they went and registered the baby. But that doesn't, in the eyes of the law, that doesn't make you belong to something just because you've registered to receive benefits, etc. Right? Just the same, because otherwise it's slavery. You know, all of the slaves on the plantation had names and numbers. And when the slave owners got paid off, when, you know, there was manumission in the English law system, because they didn't have them in New Zealand, they didn't have any slaves in England. There never has been. Slavery has always been against the law in England, right? Always. Never been at the law there. But their traders out of England owned slaves in the Caribbean. And when that was, when that became against the law, the British Treasury paid them off. So they had a number and a price for each slave. So the freedom of the slaves in the Caribbean was, you know, the British paid the plantation owners off. But that was, I mean, they should have, they were part of the system, right? The overseas traders, right? But they were, and even, you see, the land that they were holding the slaves on wasn't, was one of the colonies. They were one of the colonies, for sure. So, you know, it was a deal basically being made. So there's plenty of deals that don't make sense in forms of what the laws are about slavery. But we've got to keep on chipping away at it and exposing it. And when they say to us, but, you know, X, Y, Z, and your company must do this and that. No, you don't. We are not. We are not numbers. We are not stock. We are not cattle. We are not, you know, we have human rights. But even those human rights, as we saw, the jurists are now trying to, you know, juggle them. So that, you know, even what is left to people is under threat. But we know, we've got them. So that argument to be used against the World Health Organization too in their attempt to do the pandemic controls would be the same thing. Yeah, it's bullshit. You know, the thing is, they can say what they want. But in the end, they're not elected. Nobody elected them. Who the hell do they think they are? They're just a private organization of very, very rich people. And they have no more human rights than we do. But even the United Nations is very reluctant to overturn sovereignty in countries. They don't seem to have been very reluctant lately. No, but they still tend to respect it. The World Health Organization has no authority at all. Yet everyone's running around like they have. Yeah, but the WHO isn't arm of the UN. You know, the UN isn't squeaky clean on this. Because, of course, it's UN agendas that are being served by all this stuff. UN agenda to get, you know, the population down to 500 million, whatever it is. But the UN tends to turn a blind eye to even its own articles when it suits it. Yeah, of course. Of course. But that's not to say that we can't use, you know, the UN, use this against them. What will we do? It depends on how you use the tool, right? The law is, you know, I hold it in great esteem. But it is only a tool in the end because it can be used for good or evil. But surely if our politicians try to sign away sovereignty or respect for the sovereignty, then you're in treason to the people, aren't they? They are. And there will be treason trials. There definitely will be treason trials, Michael. Who will bring them up? Who will charge them? Because at the moment they're just making their own laws and exempting themselves. Yeah. Yeah. Well, a lot of it really depends on money, right? So, you know, there's moves to the star of the beast for a start. But also, you know, this idea they're governed by, they are governed by us, not the other way around. Because we're the ones who provide them with money, provide them with the position, you know, through voting, et cetera, et cetera. But it all depends to a large extent on confidence, right? They hold the confidence of the electorate. Now, when you get exposed all of the time, as, you know, Chipkins is at the moment, walking around in a stupid T-shirt, not knowing if he's Arthur or Martha. And he might not know what a woman is, but he certainly doesn't know what a man is either. You know, absolutely off the planet as far as that goes. You know, the confidence of the people is being quickly eroded. And at the same time, the confidence in our ability to use our legal tools is being strengthened. So we're getting them weakened and us strengthened. What's going to be the end result? Yep. Yeah. So have no fear, Laura. No fear. Because fear is there. You know, you've been told this a lot of times over the last three years. Fear is their weapon. Hiding in the shadows is their weapon. Our weapon is courage, coming out of the shadows and standing up. OK? Yeah, no, it's just I come from Russia, so I know what communism looks like. And New Zealand's heading for a dictatorship like China. I can see it. And I know you're saying have no fear. But what happened to Russia? Russia came out of it, didn't it? No, it's still a communist thing. Like we all know Putin's corrupt. He will, you know, get people to go missing and, you know, get sick mysteriously. You know, it's still happening. It's nothing like the Gulag Archipelago now that they're in Russia, is it? Or is it still that the case? Luckily, I'm not that high up, so I can't tell you if it's there or isn't. It's the people who stood up that got sent to the Gulag Archipelago. Yeah, I'm just worried that the government's going to start silencing little groups like us. Don't worry, Laura. Do you think that we would have got anywhere near this stuff if we hadn't had God on our side? That's what communism is. It's godless, right? That's where they got the people in the end. They wrecked their spirit by taking away their beliefs, you know, and by propagandising them right in the schools, you know, right in the beginning. Getting kids to spy on their parents, etc. You know, we might not be Russian, we might not have lived there, but we have read the books. Like I said, I don't want New Zealand to end up like Russia or worse, China. Yeah, I know. I know, and this is why we have to pursue the truth in every place that we find it, right? Anything that we find is the truth and other people might not know, we publicise it, we talk about it. Yeah, I'm so grateful I found you guys on Facebook. Yeah, because you're kind of a new person to come on Zoom, eh? Yeah, I've heard about you guys from VFF back when the mandates were going and people were losing their jobs. But it didn't really apply to me because I didn't have a job and you guys started talking more about topics that related to me, you know, about the law and these mandates. And, you know, people losing their jobs and now the pedophilia in our schools and, you know, the stuff that was happening after the floods. And I think, didn't it end up being Genesis' fault for like opening the floods of a dam or something? It was a lot of stuff going on. It could have been. I don't think any of it was mistaken. Oh, no, no, I don't think so either. The weather was mistaken, unfortunately. But it got little mention on the news that not only that, they tried to do this whole, you know, government relief fund. And I don't think any money got to the people. Yeah, well, Red Cross had a hand and had its dirty hands in that. They were having a go at them on TV3 the other day, which I thought was quite good. Yes, even the mainstream now is starting to, because it'll have been somebody who didn't get something, of course, in the media, that that's the only time they'll speak up. But thank you, Lara, that you weren't in the workforce and you still, you know, came on to the right side. So I think Adrian has said. Oh, I'm un-vaxxed, so I was always on the right side. Well, you know, we have people who got vaxxed and then ran a mile and they ran straight into our arms. So, you know, all good. We're here for the vaxxed, that's for sure. We're there for everybody. Yeah, we are. Yeah, we are. Thank you, sorry. What happened in the Christchurch earthquake, Vicky? She says, I lost respect for the Red Cross after the Christchurch earthquake. We don't know. Same thing, probably collected a whole raft of money and then didn't distribute it. Yeah, that clip you sent me, Emma, about TV3. And they were saying, I think they had a woman on and she was talking and said, we couldn't get anything because we weren't a registered charity. Yeah, the distribution of money after that was absolutely disgusting where it went to after the earthquakes. Yeah, apparently they collected half a billion for the Haiti earthquakes. Yeah, there was a lot of money collected for Christchurch and no one seemed to know where it went. There just didn't seem to be any accountability anyway. And there was no equity in how it was given out and things to people either. It was just awful. So I'd never ever donate to them again. Well, I think the rebuild, for whatever happened to the rebuild, not much by the look of things, especially the cathedral never got rebuilt. That was Fletcher who got all of those contracts. Interesting that, eh? Yeah. We're doing quite a lot of work now too when we're not usually in front of the unions, not usually in front of, what would you say, we're kind of the prosecution in these cases. We're not usually the defenders. But I was just talking to somebody this morning about the board, the board of the PCCs or the board of the disciplinary tribunal. When you do a bit of research on these people who are sort of sitting in judgment, it's like you should always examine them, you should always do your research on them. Because we say in New Zealand we've got two degrees of separation. In the business community and in the administrative community, if you like, the political class, the degree is more like one degree. They all know each other. They're all in each other's pockets. They've all got some way, whether it's political or financial, that they've got a link to each other. But I don't say, oh well, we can't do anything about it, then it's all doomed to failure. No, no, no, no. Because we have methods of dealing with that and it pays off. And sometimes we're waiting on a result of our application to strike out. An attack on one of our members. So, and partly, you know, they were put on notice that we knew who they were and what their links were to, you know, conflicts of interest really. Bias, conflicts of interest. So, you know, it's going to have to be a pretty much a clean sweep of the top of the, you know, leadership and the controllers of the system. Yeah, my house got so-called fixed after the quake. Still shit and not really fixed. Thanks, Fletchers. Yeah. Okay. Cool. That's awesome. What a great chat. Okay. Good, guys. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Dora. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, everybody, for coming along. Thank you. Sorry for lateness. It'll be 7 o'clock on Friday, unless you're here otherwise. Okay. Thanks. Fantastic. See you then. Okay. Thanks. Bye. Bye.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
![[Bloque 05] Fernando Armagnague 01](https://audio.com/s3w/audio.com.static/audio/image/03/03/1763907523550303-1763907581050003.jpeg@3840?qlt=75)
