A group of sovereign citizens attempted to establish a commune called New Freeland in Abel Tasman National Park. They believed that by claiming the land under allodial title, they could create a society free of taxes and laws. The attempt was unsuccessful, but it highlights the growing influence of sovereign ideas in New Zealand. The founder, Kelvin Elk, sent letters to officials at the Department of Conservation and the Governor-General, asserting their claim. The group faced legal trouble, with two women being arrested for unlawful occupation of a public building. The incident raises concerns about how to respond to those who do not see themselves as bound by the law.
Well, it's a drama filled world, isn't it? Yeah. It's pretty. And the usual, what do they say about the English, all they can do is talk about it's the weather. It seems like. Now we know how they feel. They've been making weather rather a drama filled matter lately. The idea of us all being forced into cities, it seems to be less and less attractive even. You know, at least if you're like, I was living on Waiheke and, you know, lots of places on the edge of cliffs there, but they didn't get washed off because they didn't have great build-ups and built-up areas behind them.
The water just brushed past them all. Yeah. You know, it was soaked up before it got there. Yeah. The idea of, you know, the Auckland isthmus is pretty, you know, it's pretty, you know, so many people living near the coast. And then the out west, you know, it just was dreadful. The river just became huge and took out so much. But anyway, we're still here and got some interesting stuff to talk about tonight. Two main things.
Firstly, I suppose we should really start in a way that, you know, we're the survivors. We're the people who've got to carry on with all of this. And we're doing that with divine help. And so we say thank you for that and all of the opportunities that we've been given to do this work, guys. What I'm going to talk about might seem a little bit tangential to the union. But because staff newspapers tried to get hold of me through the union, it seems that, well, did get hold of me through the union.
It seems like they are focused a little bit this way. I have tried to keep the allodial stuff separate. But there was a newspaper report in the press, I believe, at the weekend. It didn't mention the union. It did mention me quite a lot. But a lot more it mentioned Kelvin Elp. So I've supplied Emma with the three documents that have sort of led up to this. And as usual, the press have put their foot in it.
Or, you know, the press as in the media. They've put their foot in it because they were trying to run a hit piece. But what they've done is opened up one big can of worms, especially in relation to SNAs and the free waters. Right? And this is linked to allodial. So if we can have a look at the first letter, if you don't mind, Emma. Because, you see, with hit pieces, of course, they're trying to destroy the credibility of people they see through the leading movements.
Now, you know, this is the thing. The union is you guys. It's not me. And, you know, even if all of the stuff that they did trying to spin here was correct, it wouldn't make any difference in the end because the union is here to stay. The people who are fighting are here to fight and are not going to back down. This is also why the union is so insistent on being separated out from political movements because politics has become a matter of let's find somebody to lead the way and we'll all follow.
That isn't the case with this union, guys. Even if something were to happen to me and I was to disappear forever tomorrow, everything would still go on. You've already learned the stuff and what you've learned you can't unlearn. And you've got the tools, right? So this is from a guy called Charlie Mitchell. And he says, Kia ora, Liz. So that puts me off for a start. I'm a journalist at Stuff, the news website. Apologies in advance for the lengthy email.
It's just like, you know, well, we can't really read too much stuff and we can't really understand too many words at once, right? But he says, we're publishing a story about the events involving New Freeland over 2020 and 2021. You might wish to respond to some of the points raised. The story will note that the New Freeland concept, as it relates to Able Tasman National Park, was started by Kelvin Alp and yourself. It was based mainly on the allodial title, and that's in quotation marks, theory that you have advocated.
It will say that in 2020, you were arrested inside a building in the National Park and trespassed. In the months afterwards, you sent multiple letters to officials at DOC. The one you said DOC staff had no right to access the land and that we have gathered our people and shall soon occupy and inhabit our lands. Doesn't sound like me, does it? The story will note that you have a history of advancing legal theories that the court has not accepted, dating back to the Craver Farm sales.
This includes several cases in 2012 and 2013, where you represented Mulvigees trying to avert the sale of their homes. One judge at the time said about your efforts, it is unfortunate for the defendants that they have accepted advice from a person who has attempted to run schemes to defeat the position of Mulvigees or persons who acquire titles from Mulvigees. The cost that has been incurred to challenge these schemes should in reality be visited against Ms Lambert.
There is no point in doing that, however, in view of her bankruptcy. I also understand you were arrested but not charged around the time, that time in relation to writing large cheques. The attempt to set up Newfreeland ultimately failed. You have since said it was largely symbolic and very messy. Please let me know if you have any response to the above. Additionally, I have the following questions. Why in your view did the Newfreeland effort fail? Did you remain active in the project after you sent letters to DOC officials? Are you still intending to establish a community similar to Newfreeland out square in New Zealand? If you could please provide a response by tomorrow evening at the latest, it would be much appreciated.
Many thanks, Charlie. Okay, so thanks for that. There's Charlie, basically waving a big stick and threatening to expose me, if you like. So if we can have a look at the next document, if you don't mind, Emma. This is a document. You got that? Which one would you like next? The one where it's responses and comments? Oh, yes. So anyway, the same sort of letter but a bit more, a bit different was sent to Kelvin. Kelvin pretty much said, hmm, I'm not responding to him.
Well, you know, we'll do an episode. Right, so we're going to do an episode on Counterspin. We'll watch out for that soon. Where's it gone? Oh, sorry. Just give me a minute because, yeah, I'll be with you in a second. It's just the way this computer does things, it takes me a little minute to go and find where things are. Charlie does seem to be a bit confused in part of it between mortgagee and mortgagor. Yeah, he does, eh? I think he thought that mortgagees were like the people who own the houses, right? The borrowers.
Yeah, I think he thought that really because it was kind of like the mortgagees are the banks guys. You give them the mortgage, they don't give you the mortgage, right? That's why they're called mortgagees. Okay, here we go. So on the 5th of May, I responded to Charlie. Where are we? Where have we gone? I'll come back. As promised, here are some letters, here are some answers to questions and corrections of some matters in the letter you sent me a couple of days ago.
Allodial. Allodial is not a theory. It's a fact of land law internationally recognised and is the basis for all indigenous claims to land. The physical way that the land at New Freeland was claimed was based partly on how Maori were said to have established their original allodial claims. The descriptions to these will usually be found in the schedules of the Claims slash Settlements Acts. Now those are the, you know, you'll hear the claims of Tainui that get settled and it's called the Claims Settlement Act, right? The claims of Ngāi Tahu, the claims of Ngāti Ruanui, the claims of so-and-so and every man and his dog claims, right? They are all claims that are recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal for the government to settle, right? So just claims.
Kelvin and I will explain more fully when we do a Countessman episode in the near future. From my point of view, New Zealand hasn't been occupied because it's based on communal living and that is something most modern people cannot deal with in any sensible way. It requires a lot of surrendering of your individuality. The idea that some Maori have that they'd like to go back to the blanket is absurd. The chiefs like the idea very much, of course, because they'd be the ones calling the shots and there would be no living in hovels for them.
The way I see elodio being used in modern New Zealand is to resist free waters and SNA land grabs by the state. Private property is my thing, not communism. Arrested in New Freeland. It is true I was arrested in the building by mistake as my guess. I was there the day before Kelvin on the 16th of October. The open day was on Saturday, the same day as the general election, which was the 17th of October. On the 17th of October, the open day for New Freeland went off without a hitch.
There were police there, but they never approached Kelvin or any of the visitors. He did talk to the head of security for DOC, who was flown in. He can tell you about that. I'd been trespassed off by that time. I should have said helicoptered in. New Freelanders. The park is pretty much inaccessible, except by going right over the Takaka Hills. It's an amazing place, but it's way in the middle of nowhere. On the 16th of October, the police from Takaka were carrying out what was called Operation Hattersburg.
I have good reason to suspect that it involved a child's sex ring that was operating in conjunction with school camps that are held there. I don't have proof, but you're the investigative journalist, dot, dot, dot. It was revealed that it was called Operation Hattersburg through police providing discovery. Letters to DOC. You have it wrong that the letters to DOC, the police, and Governor-General were written after the open day in October. They were written beforehand to give notice of the legal basis of the claim.
And for other reasons, depending on the circumstances. For example, one of the letters to DOC was to warn them of dropping 1080. It's a tort under our International Chemical Weapons Treaty. I'm happy to provide you with copies if you'd like. So that's copies of the letters. Of course, he never got back about that. He may do in the future, of course. He might turn into an investigative journalist. You never know. Things might fly too. But anyway, Crave for Farms.
Legal fact, not theory again here. I placed caveats on the titles of the Crave for Farms to stop the titles moving. Thereby slowing down the sales to Shanghai, Pingsheng. It was always about the CCP wrecking our economy. And I was seeking to keep them in New Zealand hands. And then I've given them a link there to – this is from 2015, if I remember rightly. And they ended up – I think the total amounts that were owed by the Cravers to the banks was something like – on overdrafts was something like – and it was Westpac – something like $8 or $9 million, I think.
In 2015, Shanghai, Pingsheng had something like – they were reneging on $92 million to the ANZ, right? So that's what that little clip was about. So then I tell them about the Crave for Farms. I had bought them for $1 each and had it confirmed in a hearing at the district court in Tauranga that the Salem Purchase Agreements were valid. Of course, the hearing was unreported, but I have witnesses and the records will be in the court system.
There were a whole series of hearings, mostly in the High Court in Hamilton, about the caveats that were removed. Not for illegality, but for what is called balance of convenience. Defending the caveats resulted in my bankruptcy. The courts keep awarding costs against me. A scheme to defeat the mortgagees, and I'll put in banks. The movement of titles can be slowed by placement of a caveat, which is no more than a buyer with a where sign on land saying that someone other than the registered proprietor has a claim.
The word scheme makes it sound like something nefarious. It's not. For example, if you get legal aid and you have property, the state will place a caveat on your title. So this is what he was going to put in the hit piece, right? Yes, this happened in Huntly, my hometown, back in 2016. I was arrested and charged and spent a few hours in Huntly Police Station explaining my experiment. It's to do with what is happening with interest generated in large amounts of money going through our banking system.
I have the recording of the interview at the police station. I also have paper statements showing the transactions. At my court appearance at Huntly District Court, two weeks after the arrest, the police waited until the end of the day when everyone else had left the court and then withdrew the charges. The court records will show that this is true. So you see, Charlie, there are some pretty interesting parts to my life that I think deserve more than a hit piece.
But I guess it's up to you. And then I give them kind regards and give them my stuff, BALLB, Diploma of Labor Studies. So what does Charlie do with it? And now we're going to have a look. Thank you, Emma. At the piece in the press. And I think it's kind of exciting for those, for people doing allodial. Because it gives us some more information that I wasn't really aware of. Okay. Okay. That's coming up. And I think, you know, it'll be very interesting.
It'll be a very interesting watch when Kelvin gets around to doing the episode. Right. So this is what the press had to say. The collapse of New Freeland. The sovereign citizen utopia that wasn't. So 6th of May. Okay, so it was the very next day. He sent it, by the way, when I sent him back the explanations, he sent it off on to another editor. So I think, you know, he's not so much the top of the chain.
So what do they say? What if you could build a new society inside a national park? A motley crew of sovereign citizens tried to do just that. National correspondent, Charlie Mitchell, reports on the ambitious, but mostly incompetent, attempt to establish New Freeland under the Department of Conservation's nose. The text message was short and ominous. It's the end of the government and all control. The text read, operation checkmate has begun. Good luck. The recipient was a Department of Conservation DOC employee who for months had been monitoring a bizarre and clumsy attempt by a band of sovereign sits.
I don't know who they are, to take over Abel Tasman National Park. The sov sits had designs on building a commune called New Freeland, a society free of taxes, levies and fines, but not subject to New Zealand law. Well, that's strange too, isn't it? It was conceived on a sketchy and mostly incoherent legal theory that the crown does not exist and therefore cannot own property, meaning uninhabited public land, say a national park, can be claimed under a lodial title.
Well, that's not what's behind a lodial, by the way. We know the crown exists, all right. But we also know with a lodial that, you know, you need to occupy land. Armed with this information, the New Freelanders plotted to live in the beech forest alongside marauding wicker and the Cook Strait breeze, providing their long-shot legal theory could be successfully applied and defended. If New Freeland worked, it could have a domino effect. Crown ownership of all land would be rendered void.
The state, with its capacity to levy taxes and enforce laws, would crumble. You might be getting a bit prophetically. As of writing, the national park remains firmly under DOC's control. But the previously unreported saga shows the growing influence of sovereign ideas in New Zealand, which are colliding with the actions of government agencies and the public. Like many of the movement's pseudo-legal schemes, New Freeland was driven by a mixture of audacity and fantasy, a belief that thinly-sketched legal theories imagined on message boards and in YouTube videos can be willed into real life.
While easy to dismiss, the plot and others like it have generated concern across central and local government agencies. But do you respond to claims by people who do not see themselves as bound by the law? The tent. The founding structure of New Freeland was a pop-up tent. It was spotted in September 2020 next to a tiki torch and a jumble of plants, grapes, herbs, corn and a fig tree. Attached to the torch was a typewritten note topped with a flag and an image of a dragon devouring itself.
So here you can see the set-up that Kelvin put up at New Freeland. We'll provide you with all of the descriptions of all of the letters and everything at some stage, but we're not going to spend a whole lot of the union's time on it. But I just want to, you know, so you know what the connections are. This curious missay in scene, I suppose, I don't know how you pronounce that in French, was an announcement.
Able Tasman National Park would soon be occupied by virtue of universal common law. We further validate our claim by entering onto the land, naming it New Freeland and setting up habitation and cultivation at length. The note had a signatory, Kelvin Glen Elk. Elk is the co-host of Countessman and the Conspiracy Fuel web show that offers extreme and outlandish theories about world events. I mean, this is great. I hope it gets, I hope it really gets people looking at Countessman.
Elk has long been a student of Sobsett-aligned ideas, to which he's devoted many hours of his show. Within Sobsett mythology, the first and most crucial step is to claim land, to claim land is to plant a flag and announce your occupation. You must then plant a crop to show ongoing occupation before announcing your claim in a public forum. With these steps achieved, Elk also emailed the Governor General for good measure. The New Zealanders, you see how he's pulling out some of the things I've told him, right? So what he's doing, and he's making sure, and you'll see when he talks about me, that he doesn't say anything about what I've debunked, right? But he does this as a service, and this is why it's so exciting, and this is why I want to talk to you guys about this.
The New Freelanders prepared to make their first site visit, where they would divvy up the National Park into their own plots. Members agreed to arrive en masse in a since-deleted Facebook page devoted to New Freeland. In a show of symbolism, they agreed to turn up on election day. I don't know about that. I think it was just, as I remember, it was just chance. Remember, because we'd forgotten about that, we got more involved in setting up New Freeland than the election.
The election was such a crud. This is 2020, remember. Remember the land is yours, free of charge, including tax, rates, levies, permits or licences. The pages administrator wrote at the time. Mike Calvin was administrating it. The plan was not just posted on a publicly accessible Facebook page. A prospective New Freelander informed the police, asking them not to disrupt the happy occasion. We believe if you look into this matter, you will realise there is no justification for any interference with people who desire to be part of our peaceful society.
The letter obtained by the press said. Alarmed at the prospect of people taking over a national park, both the DOC and the police were prepared to intervene if necessary. As expected, early one morning, two women crept into Ngā Rata, a handsome Kauri homestead near Tautaranui campground within the national park, and were arrested and charged with the unlawful occupation of a public building. That's a bit wrong, actually. The charge was being in a building without good thing.
It wasn't anything to do with the public building. Other New Freelanders arrived later to examine the land, and that was the next day, by the way. But there was no occupation that day. So he's still got the two days mixed up. So if we go on, that's a picture of the nice homestead there. But it's a bit of a dark, it's got a bit of a dark thing going on there. You know, I'm not kidding about, you know, what's going on down there.
They have the right to destroy you. This is something from Kelvin, I think. For any SovCit-inspired scheme, there is the inevitable question to ask, is it for real? The answer, usually, is sort of. But the New Freelanders had an unusual level of conviction, making an answer more difficult to find. Documents released under the Official Information Act show DOC took the plan seriously, and frequently liaised with the police. In mid-2021, DOC generated an intelligence report, detailing the group's background, which it shared with both DOC and police staff who might have to deal with New Freelanders and their copycats.
This level of caution was partly due to ALP, who was not just a cheerleader for the project, but its de facto leader. ALP had sent the text message to the DOC employee, which referenced an episode of his show. In the episode, ALP announced Operation Checkmate, a plan for people to occupy public land and defend it with force if necessary. Physical harm, I don't remember if this was an episode of the show, actually. I don't think this has been talked about on the show at all.
Physical harm will come to you if you try to stop people reclaiming their birthright, their right to existence, their right to the land, their right to do what the hell they want without interference from you, he said, seemingly addressing the authorities. They have the right to destroy you if you come at them. ALP, who did not respond to a request for comment before deadline, has a well-documented history of making claims that usually come to nothing, but are tinged with enough to warrant concern.
In the early 2000s, ALP was the public face of the so-called New Zealand Arnton Detention Force. In 2000, Investigate Profile, the group claimed to have 1,500 troops, some of whom were said to be paid overseas mercenaries. They claimed to have armories stockpiled with assault rifles and rocket launchers. ALP themselves said the group had been sent on overseas missions funded by wealthy business people. In one operation, ALP claimed they were chopped into the jungle and took out a military target.
They had no idea we were coming, he reportedly said. We neutralised everyone and cleared out. The group's only public action in New Zealand was to intimidate a Bantik executive on behalf of the disgruntled shareholder. No doubt, when you guys all finally watch the counter-spin, it's all going to, you know, we'll find out. Alongside the claims being made on the counter-spin, ALP's history meant DOC could not dismiss the new freelanders as harmless. The matriarch, oh, here's me, as this target continued.
DOC and government ministers received several letters from another new freelander. One letter said DOC staff had been granted a waiver to continue operating in the national parks, but this had been revoked for a small section. Okay, so if you go up, and the small section was something else that's going down there. This was a bit about a colonial title. Yeah, we had a little bit about it, but it wasn't about New Freeland. This was one of the early, I think it was episode three of those shows.
Anyway, take it up a little bit further. We forbid entry to this area and the performance of any satanic or tribal rights anywhere in New Freeland, the letter said. That included 1080 drops. Well, the 1080 drops were sent way before that. This was a bit further on. This was 2021, this letter. Another letter, months later, said this waiver would soon be revoked for all of New Freeland. We have gathered our people and shall soon occupy and inhabit our lands.
Well, I don't recall seeing that, but anyway, the letters were sent by a former lawyer named Liz Lambert, whom ALP had once described as the matriarch of Elodium. If ALP was the political brains behind New Freeland, Lambert was its legal architect. She was one of the two women arrested during the earlier scouting mission and had been trespassed from the national park before a court appearance. In response to the press, and this is the letters, now this is where it gets interesting, I think.
She said she believed her arrest at the homestead had been accidental and she had been wrongly caught up in what she alleged was a police action against a child trafficking operation. So my thing is, I think that they did perhaps, they will perhaps follow up on that. They do want to know what that's about. The whole enterprise of New Freeland was based on converting the park to Elodium title, a type of landholding used overseas, similar to native title.
Doing so, Lambert argues, means that public land can then be occupied and stripped of all ownership assets. Well, what they, of course, that was public land, right? And, you know, as I say, I'm more interested in the legal ramifications because, of course, what it's very, very important for is this to be used to, you know, to stop the land grab under the Three Waters and the SMAs. But idolising land requires following a series of steps, erecting a flag, planting a crop and announcing your claim in a public forum.
Several private online groups are now devoted to Lambert's methods, seemingly driving a flood of interest in the concept. OK, so it's achieved what we wanted it to, well, what I wanted it to achieve. So we will get some more information. A group called NERF Land planted a flag near Waimea Inlet in Nelson. Similar claims to New Freeland were sent to GOC regarding a bay in Lake Taupo and land near the Mairoa River in North Canterbury. And this is obviously a quote from DOC.
There has been a marked increase in social media activity and engagement with DOC and other public agencies by New Freeland and splinter groups. An intelligence report produced by DOC said, indicating the New Freeland movement is extending its activities and gathering followers or emulators. All good. Because the process requires announcing your claim in a public forum, examples are not difficult to find. One person had idolised Hagley Park in Christchurch Hospital. Others idolised the beehive during the occupation at Parliament.
Well, that was me doing that. Now, this is to save the public space for the public, right? Because when you idolise, in the end, we would get them to court on these things, but they won't go to court, of course, because we're correct. In one bizarre post, a man appears to have gained access to a property formerly owned by Sir John Key, which he says he idolised by planting a potato beneath the window. Actually, it was a tomato.
His inspiration, Liz Lambert. He did it with my blessing, she wrote in a comment. A letdown for Bob. OK. After a long period of silence, people were getting anxious about New Freeland. I don't know. This is about... This is about... This is just spin-doctoring about, you know, complaints about the original flag, a dragon eating its own tail, contained occult imagery, a new design was unveiled, da-da-da. And then it's about the new flag. Didn't know anything about it being similar to the flag of Suriname.
Reverse image suggests the design which occurs, which alters the colour of the original Suriname flag, was first posted on website DeviantArt in 2017, with the designer noting it looks kind of spacious. Wow, really, never heard of it. OK. Eventually, an official update came. Help planned to arrive in September 11. One year after, he announced his claim. Once again, DOC and police were on the alert. Kelvin was in lockdown, couldn't leave. Small group proceeded to the... Yeah, so anyway.
So some people went up there. They moved off without anything else happening. Keep on going. That's the localisation of John Key's place. Because... John Key's former place. It's owned by an overseas Chinese businessman. And nobody in it. Over in Rimiwera. They appeared to be peaceful, the DOC worker observed. But since that got a localised, they certainly came scuttling back to occupy it, that's for sure. The DOC worker observed, although one had seemingly offered marijuana to a group of young people nearby.
They have repeated. DOC has been given notice and the department needs to vacate the buildings. The only offence so far is cannabis, which is a police issue. Let me know how you want me to proceed. DOC decided to wait it out. Then, looks like, after three nights, the men left. So there was no... Basically, what that tells you is... If the police... If people had stayed and the police had come and... What happens is... Tends to happen is...
In those sorts of situations. The police will lock somebody up. And then... When it gets to the court, they drop it. So that's the usual plan of action. So it's intimidation, it's not any disproving of the... Of the fact of a lodolisation. So what do I say here? From my point of view, Newfoundland hasn't been occupied because it's based on communal living. And that's something most modern people cannot deal with in any sensible way. You've heard about that.
It requires a lot of surrendering of your individuality. Now, of course, he's left out all of the stuff about... The funny thing is... Is that a lot of... This has been taken up by... What would you call it? The people who are saying they... They should have the Department of Conservation land. The Department of Conservation have decided to hand it over to Māori. And the fact of... The Three Waters, of course, we know who's pushing that.
So... But, you know, I don't... What I said about it was that it's only... In the end, it's only the chiefs who get anything out of that. They're not interested in... As I've said before, they're not interested in the people at all. And it's illegal. Because, you know, the iwi itself is just like the government. They cannot occupy individually and say, OK, we're having this land for sustenance. So what do I say? Oh, yeah, that bit there.
She believed there was still a place for elodialising land. The way I see elodial being used in modern New Zealand is to resist the Three Waters and SNA land grabs by the state, she said. There we go. So, to me, everything over the last... Since the elodialisation of New Freeland, that sentence, to me, makes it all worthwhile. If people don't actually start to... It starts to ring bells, right? That on their own land, they have occupation.
They have elodial rights. And they can tell... They can tell council to get lost. They can tell council, you're not having any more rights. They can resist all this bullshit about Three Waters. OK? They can elodialise... You know, it will bring this to an end, in the end. So I just said private property is my thing, not communism. He's quoted that. Elsewhere, however, she has partly disavowed the New Zealand... New Freeland effort she was once willing to be arrested for.
All right. Well, that's his spin, isn't it? What we did in New Zealand, New Freeland, was largely symbolic as far as I'm concerned. And she said in the video last year, well, I think that's true. I wanted to prove a legal point. It ended up very messy. Well, it ended up very messy, but out of the mess came, you know, there's a place for elodialising land. Right? You protect your own land from the land grabs that are going on, by the state.
Yeah. And it's not a legal theory. And it's not a legal theory. Yeah. It's not a legal theory. Not at all. I like that quote. Yeah. Yeah. So that's what's going on. I think Carl has shared something. What's Carl shared in this chat? Because, of course, this is interesting for the other sorts of grabs that are going on. And Carl, of course, is very famous for beating the drum about Marsden Point. Yep. There we go. Take back control.
Right? How are you, Carl? Hi, Carl. So, you know, how are you? the land, all of the land, because really what's going on, why do they want the land? Why does the state want the land? Not just to keep us off it. It's got minerals, it's got oil, it's got gas, it's got everything we've got and, you know, immense reserves of wealth in this country that the state just thinks it can, coal, for example. Right? You know, you can't dig your own coal up.
Right? The coal belongs to the state. The oil, the gold belongs to the state. With a low deal, it all belongs to whomever is occupying the land over the top of it. It's like a, you know, when a mining claim goes in, right? People end up paying something to the state for that mining claim. But in actual fact, you know, it's yours. Now, the failure, I guess, if you could call it that, is that the state will attempt in public places to, to put down, you know, to put down the action.
And they have police and they have army, if need be. Right? And this is why I was always saying, we never, we never declare ourselves a nation. Right? Because that brings down an attempt to conquer, an attempt to conquest. I mean, the main thing about the fact that New Zealand all being a low deal land is the fact that it was never, never subject to conquest. Right? We've never been, the land has never been subject to conquest.
Well, you can find out about how conquest works if you look at the land that was sold originally to the New Zealand company by Te Rauparaha and the chiefs. Right? They had cleared the land of people by taking slaves and killing. And, and so they sold the land to the New Zealand company. And that was accepted. That was accepted. But yes, they had a, they had a conquest claim. But then when it was examined, that sale, to see how much land the New Zealand company had actually bought, a whole lot of it couldn't be passed over because the slaves were coming back to reclaim.
Some of the people had fled, especially around Whanganui, they'd fled up into the mountains and went to Te Rauparaha and mostly Tainui and Ngapuhi, okay, were the raiders. That's where their, you know, their, their connections are to. And Wellington itself, they decimated the people in the Wellington area. And, but people had, once the treaty was signed and English law was accepted, though there was what's called manumission, which is the freeing of slaves, right? So it's, it's basically what happened was the slaves were freed, they came back from the north or wherever they'd been kept captive because that was the deal, right? Because the, because the people up the far north, those tribes, Ngapuhi, et cetera, they weren't going to get any of the deals of, of the, of the treaty if they hadn't gone by English law.
Okay? So the deal was that they got trading concessions, okay, that was what the 1835 deal was about, trading concessions. So you could fly, you could, that's what the flag is about. So you can, you could sail your, your trading ships up to, especially up to Sydney. And you wouldn't get, you know, you wouldn't get your stuff confiscated. Because you weren't flying under a register, a registered flag. Because you've got to remember that Britannia ruled the waves, and that wasn't just the sailing, that was the case, right? So you could, if you didn't fly under the English flag or a form of English flag, then you couldn't get your port, you couldn't get your goods landed in ports.
They'd confiscate them. Or you could be pirated. But if you were flying under the English flag, then, you know, the might of the British Empire would come down on your head if you pirated somebody flying under that, you know, shipping, trading under that flag. So, of course, being, you know, a few slaves, they were bothered about that. And, but under English land law, those people had the right of occupation. That was a, and that was a low deal title, right? So, not only were the, there were reserves put aside, because the chiefs had just sold the whole damn lot, they got 10% of the deal.
And they were paper potted, basically, in land, and they got choice of land down in Wellington. That's what the Wellington tenants are. So that, but that was only for them and their families. So that's the bloodline, right? That's controlling the show now. That's the bloodline. And those, those people, those families, when we talk about top families controlling the show over the, throughout the world, it's no different in this country. It may look very different, but it's, at its basis, it's exactly the same.
So, anyway, but for the rest of us, for us common people, we have rights of occupation, right? And especially if you've got, and people quite often ask, quite often ask about, well, you know, where do I register my elodial title? You don't. You don't. There's no, it's basically what's called the beneficial title, right? The right of occupation. Okay, so in terms of elodialising public spaces, I've done quite a few, few of them, and I've put the examples up on Elodial World.
It's called now, it used to be called Liz Lim at Elodial. You can have a look at them there. But as I say, it's to, it's to hold the space. It's to hold the territory, basically, to say we have, you know, we as the people have the right to be here. You know, we're not to be driven like cattle from place to place and told stay in this 15 minute city and don't move. So, you know, I mean, in terms of people get their head around elodial.
Hopefully, I pray to God that they will feel a lot more reassured about we are, we cannot lose this battle. It's not possible in the end because we're correct. Yeah, and the whole basis of the courts, et cetera, is also as I've said before, they have to obey the law as well, especially the land law. Well, it's the basis of everything because you could, you can't set up virtual worlds, right? A lot of, and this is why maritime law gets used a lot because they then run by the law of the sea and it's moving.
It's constantly moving. You know, some of you older ones might remember might remember Radio Hauraki, which was called the pirate radio station, right? They were outside the three mile limit. I think it was. And yeah, they couldn't, they're not, they weren't bound by the law of the land. The law of the land is more than just, you know, a phrase. It's very, very, very important. And international law has always, well, English common law has always recognized it.
That if you went somewhere else, there were people living there, you made deals with them. The English didn't go around, you know, doing conquests. They were tiny little dots up in the English Channel. You know, pretty, pretty small country, but pretty clever people. Okay. Now, the other thing, I don't know if you guys want to talk about this for a bit, but I just wanted to quickly pass on to what's happening with the the submissions to the, what's it called, the Education Act, the bill to change the Education Act to say that for every school board there's got to be a rainbow community representative.
Right. So Dora and I are going to have put in a submission on behalf of the union. Dora's going to talk about the criminal law as it might apply to schools that try and do this sort of stuff. I'm going to talk about the civil law and especially, and I think it was very important to remember that anyone who worked for a government department of any kind or worked in schools or hospitals, that they're covered by this Public Services Act 2020.
Under Section 54 the state in the form of the minister is not allowed to interfere with the employment contracts or the employment of matters of people. So in terms of what they're proposing with this imposition of rainbow community people into boards of trustees they would then become the employers because that's how it works of the teachers. So one of the things I'll be talking about when I speak to the submission is the fact that that would be unlawful.
All right? Because the teachers cannot be you're not allowed to mix politics with the operations of a government department. They're supposed to be neutral. Okay? So you can't be going, having political interventions which, of course, was what all of this jabbing was. That was a political intervention into the contracts of the state sector workers of the public service. They keep changing the name of the darn act all of the time depending on what spin they want to put onto it.
So now they're calling it public service. That's the latest iteration of that. So I won't talk too much about that tonight because I think you guys might be quite interested in telling us stories. What's fees and the state of use the assets have taken and using them as a way of garnering income from overseas. Yeah. You know, they have no right. One of the things that, of course, he never talked about in his final his final blurb was the arrest for writing cheques, right? Because what actually happens, and it's it's not that hard to understand, really.
What I did was I wrote large cheques and put them, in the first place, I put them into my account to see what would happen. And apparently quite a few people told me, oh, this is what some of the bankers got up to. On a Friday, they'd put in a a large amount of money from somewhere, probably borrowed it for on short term. And then it would garner a whole lot of interest and and then they'd pay it back and they'd keep the difference in the interest, right? So they're making nice little cubby holes.
But these amounts of money that we can we can imagine are going on with New Zealanders. New Zealand seems to be some sort of very large self-specific money laundering scheme. So we've got large tranches of overseas funds coming into the accounts. They get they get interest on the funds depending on what the official cash rate is. And and then while they're there, as soon as that happens, say you put in, I can't even imagine what sort of money it would be.
But I was putting in, say, seven million, a cheque for seven million. It goes into the account. It gets, it got about, say, $700 or $600 or $700 interest. Well, out of that comes 25% goes to IRD as withholding tax, right? So basically the state is easily run on what the on the money that's coming through from overseas interest into this country. They're taking 25% of the billions and billions of dollars that are going through. Okay? So, but then it gets reversed out again.
So what happened is, you know, I mean, there's there's still some money hanging around in various accounts of banks out there. But this is what this is what they didn't want to have. This is why, you know, when the police withdrew the charges down in Huntly, it was because I explained it all in a, in a you know, when you get interviewed by the police they record it and you've got to write under the I don't know which it is now, summary of interest, I think to get a recording of it.
So, which I did. And I've still got it. So, you know, plenty of proof where we're going with this. Who knows? You know, nobody nobody knows where we're going. I've got a pretty good idea, but I I know, no, I can't tell you the future. I can only tell you the past. And I'm not, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. There's a lot, when you look at it, a lot of money being held by the state. Yeah, Winston's Winebox.
Well, Winston's Winebox. This was what was going on. And I think that up in the islands, it was more laundering money possibly for gun running, possibly for drug running up there. Yeah, he he knows a thing or two does Winston Peters, that's for sure. And he's blowing the whistle on what has also gone on with who was it? Someone called Meta. Somebody Meta, who was a list MP. This is why we don't know about these people.
They haven't, you know, got a constituency. They're just on a party list like Jacinda was. She only got a shoe in Mount Albert in 2017. I think it was when she finally, or no, 2020. She finally got to be other than a list MP. But she's never had a constituency. A constituency. She's always basically used the party list. This is why I say we've got to end political parties. They're nothing but cabal. They're crims, right? And they just rig it.
So anyway, Winston is blowing the whistle on this woman, Meta, who has said, no, I'm not going to I'm not going to be a member of the Labour Party anymore. I'm going to be I'm going to be a member of the Maori Party. But you're not allowed to do that, apparently, within six months of an election, because you can't because if you resign cleanly, right, out of your party, then they have to hold a by-election. But this, going over to another party, so she maintains, and Sean Plunkett did a very good show about it, and he was really incensed, but apparently she's not the only one, and it sounds like what's-her-name, Mahuta, might be thinking of doing the same sort of thing.
Right? So, yeah. Very bad stuff. But, you know, I've said, I've said for a long time, I've said since 2020, this government, this crown is holding hands with some crooks in this world, in our own country. Okay, so anybody who wants to know more about Elodio, I'm probably not going to address it again on this forum. We're probably going to have a channel on what's called Voices Media, and all of that stuff will go over there, and we'll keep this just for union stuff.
But because it was, you know, it seems to have been, and by sending it to the union, it was kind of like, we're going to destroy the union, because we've found out you've done this, that, and the other, and da-da-da-da. And, no, I haven't got the template for the schools yet. Not happening just yet, Robin. But we've got to do the, I mean, we will do, on the 17th, we're going to do the presentation, we're going to talk to the select committee, and then we'll get organised with the template for the teachers, okay, and for the schools.
Hail. Oh, it's hailing where you are. Right, Michael, neighbour. How are you, Liz? I'm good, thank you, Michael. I just wanted to raise a point of interest. We've had someone going around here who has a bit to do with local council, and with these speed restrictions that are going on, apparently there's a bureaucratic policy, they're sending all the traffic lights out of sync to slow traffic down, and they're putting in speed humps that are unsafe and actually breach the Health and Safety Act, because they're not signposted correctly, and they're certainly not lit correctly, which I would know something about.
But there are intersections in places that if cows hit them at high speeds, you're going to launch them into people and start killing people. And this apparently, also the traffic management, they're loading areas in there to make the traffic flows really stuffed up, and this is deliberately being done by bureaucrats in the council. I was wondering if we could do anything under the Health and Safety Act against them, because they're actually breaching their own rules. Yeah, with the Health and Safety at Work Act, you'd have to get WorkSafe to take action, right? WorkSafe, extremely discredited as far as I'm concerned, but that will be addressed as time goes by.
The fact that they are protected, people who had anything to do with the 2020 Act, they were protected under Section 34, which then refers you back to the Health Act 1956. And when you go to Section 129 of the Health Act 1956, you'll find out that yes, they can do all sorts of stuff, but they have to firstly act in good faith and they have to act carefully. Now, if you look at what WorkSafe is supposed to do, you're supposed to prosecute people who act carelessly or recklessly.
Remember Section 47? People can be fined up to, you know, so the council could be fined up to $3 million for death if WorkSafe got onto it. WorkSafe are going to have to face the music again soon over what they did about, well, they weren't WorkSafe then, they were OSH, but what they did about the Pike River Mine. So that is going to come up again soon. Nothing ever, you know, in the end, the bad, the wrongdoers do have to face the music.
But we do kind of know the paths that we have to take now, at least, to get them there. Yeah. Are the rescuers saying this sort of nonsense around the rest of the country? Because it seems to be connected with an attendant at 15 Minutes City. Yeah. Well, here's one thing people could do was to complain to WorkSafe about it, OK? Because WorkSafe are the regulator of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Yes, if, you know, these things become hazards, because a workplace can be anywhere that people are active in, right? So the council has extended their workspace, if you like, out there.
The council trucks and cranes and God knows what, they become workspaces for the people who are working on them. The places that they're working on become workspaces, right? So WorkSafe has the responsibility for that. Hazards can be reported to WorkSafe. A lot of people start doing it, you know, here's something you might like to think about, put together a letter about how to, you know, look at the Health and Safety at Work Act, see how you report these things, right? You don't have to be a worker in the place to report them.
And what about the council officer who's off on a tangent there because he's not serving his constituents? Well, he wasn't elected anyway to that position. Who's that? Well, that is, the main person who's reporting it has been speaking to this guy at the council, so he's witnessed everything the guy has said. And he said that they're deliberately setting, that this guy was skirting, that they deliberately set the lights out of sequence and put these humps in and the traffic management in place to, I believe the correct term or the woke term is road calming, traffic calming.
And all he's doing is increasing the potential for accidents and road rage and everything else. But he admitted at the end of the day it was trying to make things so difficult for people driving cars that they abandon them and go to public transport, et cetera. Well, you know, the thing is that WorkSafe itself is not immune from prosecution. You've always got to remember this. The, anybody who has a power under any act, right, any regulator or...
Okay, so the council's a road controlling authority, so they're responsible for safety on the roads. Yeah, yeah. But it's WorkSafe that has to take the prosecutions. Now, I'm not saying, Carl's saying, oh, good luck. Well, the thing is, it's not luck. It's knowing what to do, Carl. Okay? The fact is that when they are brought up to scratch by people who say, look, this is what... We've got the... And don't just go saying, well, we think this.
Bring the evidence, right? Put it before WorkSafe and say, do your job, and publicise it. Right. Because they can, you know, there are plenty of cases where all sorts of departments of government are being prosecuted by WorkSafe, right? You know, the Defence Force. I've talked about these cases before. The Defence Force, the police, where they have let their own workforce be injured, et cetera. And there's been private prosecutions, but there's also been plenty of prosecutions and continue to be prosecutions by WorkSafe.
The White Island one, right? WorkSafe prosecuted a whole lot of bodies about that. Some of them the wrong people. What happened to the helicopter pilot that rescued all those people, didn't he? Yeah, exactly. But he wasn't prosecuted for that. They said... They then made up some crap because they wanted to get at him because he was too much of a hero and made them look bad, right? They went after him for some... Apparently, some... Because he was flying...
He was also flying his helicopters out to the island taking tourists and stuff. And so they went after him for something like that. It wasn't the actual rescues. It's God. He got decorated for that. And he's a great pilot, you know? But he made them look so bad. That was a revenge. As far as I can make out, it's a revenge. Yeah. And I was told, and they never followed it up with me, but that the WorkSafe officer who took him to court and said I'd investigated it, he wasn't guilty of anything, and I was forced to.
I was forced to. So here we go again with the corruption. This country. They've prohibited the population. Man! Yeah. A lot of work to do. I think we get the award for the most politely, most opaque, if you like, corrupt people in the world. Yeah. Yeah. It's a 15-minute city agenda, that question. Yeah. So, guys, you know, but take heart. You've got weapons. Remember, in the end, they're going to have to face us in court. In terms of the union and its struggles to get people's cases before the authority and the court, the team have been doing some great work.
We've found lots of cases now that the authority, well, the court especially, is saying we want to see these and we don't want you, you know, the state basically has to pay. You can't be having costs against people for taking cases, right, because what they've been doing is, you know, putting in a lot of what are called interlocutory motions, so motions to dismiss or strike out or provide more evidence, et cetera, et cetera, and then threatening to, you know, saying, well, we don't think you can pay, so put money into the account, you know, otherwise it should be stopped.
You know, you shouldn't be allowed to go any further because you've got to remember that what we're doing with the cases is we're like the prosecutor, right, and they're trying to stop it with money. But the courts do realise that this is going on, and now we've found some cases where they say, you know, they don't say, you know, you've been doing it to stop it happening, but they're, you know, they're elucidating principles that say that this is the way that justice must be done and it must be seen to be done, right, and there's no use.
You lawyers out there who are trying to stop us, forget it. And, of course, we've got six years, guys. We can take them all under safe workplaces as a common law action, but we can still take them before the authority and the court. So all good. Yes. Keep the pressure on. That's right, Alicia. That's it. Good. Is thundering in Auckland now? Yeah, we just had that. It's stopped now, thank goodness. Yeah. I was worried. So we're going to get hail soon, do you think? I worry about the animals when it comes to the hail.
Yeah. There was a bit of a blink of the light. What do you say? The Lake River Mine should never have been allowed to have anyone underground because the original ventilation shaft was designed at 4.5 metre diameter, which collapsed at its base inside the mine, so they drilled another shaft beside it at only 2.5 metre diameter, which was never big enough to safely ventilate the mine. Who signed off on it? Where was the Labour Department? Yep.
Yep. That's right. Can I speak? I'm an official. Sorry. Go on, Karl. I'm in Kaikoura, and I've just been talking to Chaz that owns Beam Me Up Coffee. I'm staying at her place tonight. She tells me that the local council here has got millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild Kaikoura, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild the port down on the south side of Kaikoura, where the whale watch goes from, and all the fishing fleet runs out of it.
Now, they're going to be shifted out of there, and they're going to make this port open it up so they can get, she said cruise lines, but I don't think it's going to be that easy. But, hey, they're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, so anything. What do they want to open it up for, Karl? Oh, cruise liners. The rich and famous. The rich and famous want to bring their super yachts down here as well. No.
Yeah, well, we're supposed to be the playground of the rich and famous. They've always had their eye on this, but it's too crowded up with scungy New Zealanders as far as they're concerned. So where do these fishing go as far as their loyalty or title on that land, because it's obviously council land. Well, it's public land, and I think that occupations are the way to go. Well, they're already there. To bring a loyalty or two to the fore.
And, you know, that could have been used down at the occupation, down at Wellington, but people didn't know enough about it, yeah? Everything has its time, yeah. But definitely, I'd say that, you know, people learn about it, watch the – we'll talk about it quite extensively and look at the legal basis of when we do the episode, I think, and suggest ways that people can use it. And raising – because it's the last thing they want, you know, in terms of Star of the Beast, you've got, you know, you're not going to pay them any more council, these councils, anything more.
So they haven't got no money to, you know, they'll have to get a real job. I talked to Michelle yesterday. She said she's got away from the whole system. The council were locking her up for three months. It did her a favour, because now she runs a business as Koha. You give her a donation for the copies she provides, and it's only cash. She doesn't have credit cards. If you haven't got cash, she gives it to you as a donation, and you can sort out whether you're going to come back with some money for her.
Yeah, right. And it's all working nicely, is it, Karl? Yeah, she said she doesn't have to have any business plan or Health and Safety Act or anything like that. Yeah, oh, really? Right. She's completely away from their system. Right, right, right. Very good. Good on her. And tell us again, Karl, who that was, just for people who don't know. If you go into the main street of Kaikoura, down by the, closer to the council building, is a Bean Me Up copy.
That's right, yep, yep. Cool, yeah. She's one of our long-serving Band 1080 people from the Kaikoura region. Yep, fantastic. Good on her. I've known her a number of years. She stood for council. They pulled the stunt after the election. If they had pulled it prior to the election, it would have given her so much kudos. Oh, that's right. I remember that story now. Yeah, it was bad. And they'd been chasing her for a number of years, so they could have done it earlier, but no, they chose to after the election before they did it.
And they actually locked her up for three months. Kidnapping. I've just put headphones in, because I couldn't hear you. It was just out and banging on the roof with the tail. Wow. Yeah. And as far as Pike River goes, as I said, the ventilation shaft was not adequate, and there's no way that mine should have been operating, because it never, ever had enough ventilation happening. The gas levels were so high. WorkSafe, which was what the Labour Department was prior, did nothing about it.
The miners tried to have several strikes over safety issues, and Andrew Little wouldn't back them up. He was the head of the engineering at the time. Yeah. Oh, Andrew Little is going to be infamous at the end of all of this. Andrew Little. He'll have some hemp around his neck for bow tie. Yeah. Bean Me Up. What a great name. Yeah, Bean Me Up. She's quite clever. She's been in business for about 10 years, she tells me, so in all that time she's never had any incidents with health.
It was just all about she didn't want to fill out the paperwork, so they wouldn't let her operate. But that's the thing. It's a book full of all the things with all the ticks in it, but that just sits on the shelf. Meanwhile, other businesses just carry on doing whatever they want to do. Well, yeah, well, this is the thing. We haven't talked about, we won't talk about the tax department just at the moment, but I think we've fed enough cats among the pigeons at the moment.
And as I say, I want to take this over to another channel, which we haven't got ourselves organized to become part of yet, even though both Emma and I are members. It's a subscription of $2.50 a week. But all of the union stuff is going to be always free, right? Always free. So even people who aren't members of the union, they're getting a lot of information. But, you know, that's the way it is. But, you know, because we want to sort of hive off the elodial, the banking, the tax stuff and other things over to a different place, it'll be a subscription one.
But $2.50 a week, you know, for people. Some people are going to use it to, you know, it'll make people's lives a lot easier. And I think $2.50 a week is probably extremely good. Oh, and it's also, it's apparently Voices. I'm not a great, you know, I'm not a great seller for them because I haven't used it myself yet, and I don't know how good it is, but it sounds to me excellent. There will be no censorship on there at all.
People can chat. So the emojis have been taken off chats so people don't feel ganged up against. They can say whatever they want. There will be a 6 o'clock news, and it'll be what they call New Zealand Creatives because I would go on as the creator of the stuff that's going on there. Emma, do you want to tell us a little bit about Voices Media? Yeah, I've subscribed to them a couple of times. One of the, or I don't know whether he is the owner, Michael Young, Michael John, I think it's Winkle or Winchell, I'm not sure how you pronounce it.
They're based in Pukekohe, but yeah, they've got some good technology behind the, it can't be hacked and that kind of thing. E-local. E-local, that's it. Yeah, so he does that magazine as well, and it's always been awesome. He's very much on the same page of uncovering the truth. It's a bit like a mini version of Uncensored, I suppose, in some ways. So yeah, that's a great platform. They have a lot of other stuff on there as well.
Yeah, and I think you get access to that. It's only $2.50 a week. You get access to the magazine. You get access to all of the New Zealand Creatives, right? Yeah. So, for example, we've got this, and then we'll be doing stuff over there. And then there'll be, you know, I don't know who else will be, but there'll probably be all sorts of people who have sort of that extra area where they want to sort of get a feel of how everything fits together, because we don't really know.
We know we've each got a bit of what's going to happen, but we haven't really had a chance to be all on one platform where we just focus on the New Zealand situation and work out the local solutions, yeah? Whether they be legal or other, you know, actions, if you like. And I think it'll be great. Anne? Yeah, sorry, Karl. If you're following what I'm doing with my Buy Back Marsden Point, those pictures I just put up before, through ShareEasy, we've got a link.
And if you join that, I'm aiming to get 100,000 new Petro-Kiwi shareholders. And when we get to that magic number, I don't know if it'll be 100,000 or less, we'll then call a special meeting, and we'll vote the board and senior management out of Channel Infrastructure and install new directors and management that want to reinstate the refinery and get it operational again. Yeah, well, see, if we've got this platform, if you subscribe to the platform, you don't subscribe, well, there's a number of creators, right? But you're actually subscribing to the platform for $2.50.
So you can actually look at any of this stuff. And in the news, the blogs, et cetera, people can inform others about that. So if you end up with 100,000 subscribers, you've got a very good chance of gathering that audience, if you like, or those people to support that. I think it's going to be great. It's just a matter of trying to find the time to get everything into place. I'm very fortunate that Emma and Erica are going to pretty much be running all of the technical side and, you know, helping provide the material.
Because, you know, I mean, it's not like a 24-hour thing, but we can have talk back on there. It's got a facility for that. And I love it, you know, the idea of radio. Yeah. And they've got music, haven't they? Yeah, I'm not sure about that. I haven't explored that. You probably have. Yeah. Yeah. But I haven't even had time to really explore it. It's a great thing, though. Yeah. Oh, Alicia's saying, on the short, I've finally got the thunder and rain there now.
It's moved off from the mainland Auckland now a bit. Did anyone see what Grant Robertson has been up to? No. See, tell us. What's Grant been up to? Kim, Kim, I don't know what the link is at the moment. I'll get that. Is she talking about for Voices Media? I can get that. Oh, it's just Voices Media, is it? Dot com? Oh, what is it? He did tell us, didn't he? All right, I'll just go find it.
Yeah, Voices Media dot co dot nz. It could be dot co dot nz. Have a play around. You'll find it. Not very good. Sorry, NJ and Richard. Dot nz it is. Dot nz. Yeah, Voices Media dot nz. I'll grab the link right now. Good. There we go. Rebel News. Rebel News reports New Zealand politicians caught allegedly following graphic underage Instagram account. Labour politician Grant Robertson under fire after internet sleuths claimed he was following a controversial Instagram account.
And it was. Awesome. It was Cute Boy Philippines is the Instagram. A lot of young, young boys, young teenage sort of, I don't know, 13, 12 year old boys with their shirts off in the Philippines. Probably doing research for your chickens. Yeah. Research those buddies, eh? Yeah, well, they're just disgusting. They're just pedos. Sorry. Yep. Wow. Oh, have you got a link for that? See? Yeah. Rebel News, which is Rebel News. That's RV Yemeni. Oh, that's on Facebook.
It must have been. Well, Rebel News. They're on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter. I'm not sure where else I think. You'd be lucky if it's still up at the rate things are going these days. Oh, well, yeah, that's true. Yeah. No, I just got a screenshot of that front page of it. And I'm thinking, yeah, that just actually plays into everything that I've been thinking about the, you know, the famous trio. Because I think they're all birds of a feather.
The three of them that have been at the top there. Hipkins, you know, with his baby face. I actually just give me the creeps completely. And Jacinda's a tranny, so. Oh, wow. Okay. I'll send it out loud. Oh, really? Oh, well, you know, he had a big, I couldn't quite make out. Really? Oh, my gosh. That's our Head of Treasury, you know. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Oh, man. So, I can just show you on my phone.
I can't really share it any other way. Oh, it's back to print. Oh, no. Rebel News. Fantastic Rebel News. Oh, my. If anybody's got links to Rebel News, we can pull that out. Well, you know, when he got married to his little boy, right, oh, everybody was there. You know, Helen Clark, all of the creeps were there. Oh, creepy, creepy, creepy. What was the date on that? Oh, if you look up his wedding, right, you'll see them all.
I'd rather not. Oh, man. Makes a headache, doesn't it? A soldier's claim. Wayne, isn't it? I am, yes. Can you show me that picture again? I want to take a picture, if you don't mind. Oops. Sorry. I can't quite hear what you're saying. And one other thing, Liz, what's the difference between a law and an act? I think I'm going to take these earphones out and see if I can hear people better. It's kind of blurry.
What's the difference between a law and an act? Oh, OK. They're the same thing. It's just a difference. But isn't when government... Sorry? Doesn't when government pass a bill, they turn it into a law? Maybe you're talking about a statute. Maybe you're talking about statute in common law. I think that is kind of the easiest way to put it. Statute is acts of Parliament, right? Oh, yeah, OK. They're often what's called codification of common law. So, for example, the Crimes Act, right? The Crimes Act is basically made up of criminal...
Well, it's criminal behaviour, right? That's not... And sometimes in the Crimes Act it's kind of a little bit hard because you've got the kind of personal crimes like murder and rape and theft and all of that stuff. And then you've got your more... And while they're in the Crimes Act and can be prosecuted, they're always prosecuted by the state because they're basically saying the crime is against society as a whole. But, yeah, and you see all of these other things in the Crimes Act that you think, well, you know, how do they get in there? There's crimes against the administration of justice, for example.
Now, there are crimes that can be sort of prosecuted against people in their jobs because of the role that they have. So, for example, if in the end, you know, everything turns out the way we think it's And people like... Well, let's take a New Zealand politician who allegedly following graphic underage Instagram account, right? Now, he was also involved in a scheme to push the back, right? According to a leaked email agreeing with Jacinda to hyperbolize the numbers of people who were getting sick or the cases to scare people in this country into getting, you know, to staying locked down because this was at the time of lockdown.
Other things like that. So, you know, there are things under the Crimes Act that even though they're put together as statutes, you know, like, and because the Crimes Act will refer you back to under such and such an act. Well, not so much such and such an act, but other acts come into it, right? So, what am I trying to say here? The law we often think of as the common law, as the case law, as the law of this is what happened, this was the evidence, this was the ruling of the court, etc, etc.
Statute law sits over here and very, very often gets brought into cases, right? But you can have, so, for example, if in an Employment Relations Act case, right, there's parts of it that are, well, most of it under the Employment Relations Act refers to what you are and are not allowed to do under that act. And that is an act of Parliament, right? There are also what's called common law remedies, right, that will come out of common law.
The whole thing, actually, and here's an interesting thing. You've sometimes heard me say our law is based on, is Judeo-Christian. The Judeo part is the Ten Commandments, okay? That's the commandments written on the tablets of stone. The Christian part is what Jesus Christ taught in the New Testament, right? Love thy neighbour as thyself, mercy, forgiveness, etc, etc. So that's kind of the equitable part of that. Doesn't change the law, as Christ said. The law stayed the same.
Not one thing was changed, but he came, basically, you know, when he taught the law, the emphasis that had to be on the law, you know? And so we don't have stoning in our law, okay? They used to have stoning of adulterers, right? Remember, that's the story of the woman who was taken in adultery and they were going to stone her. That was the law of Moses. Well, it's not, you know, written down in detail, but that was the Judaic law.
They could have done that. Although they probably would have got into trouble with the Romans, because the Romans were running the show and they were sort of like, you could only actually execute people. But you could beat them up pretty bad, or throw them off cliffs and stuff like that. So our law is based on those two basic things, right? So in every case, there is going to be justice. There is going to be justice, whether it's put together by codification into a statute, because, you know, they just don't make up, they can't make up stuff out of the blue.
These hate speech laws, for example, right? They are not, they can't actually, they don't make any sense in terms of jurisprudence. There is no part of the law that's ever been that you could be, you know, you could have people put in prison because you're offended, right? That has never been part of the law. You know, there used to be, I guess, there was, you know, customs back in the day where you could be put in stocks.
And there was this thing that women had to wear, wore a skulls muzzle and stuff like this. You know, this is back in the Middle Ages, right? They're trying to take us back to the Middle Ages with this crap that they go on with. So Moses, technically the first human to download tablets. I have one other question. Yes, say. I have one other question. Yeah, go on. I'll be right here. I was reading and I've just got some paper sent to me.
I was reading when the New Zealand government got rid of the Sovereignty in 1986, rewrote the 1852 Constitution. Now, if the New Zealand government got rid of the Sovereignty and gave himself the ultimate power into a corporation, how does a corporation run, take over a country? See, that's the first part of my question. My second part of the question is, the corporation known today as the New Zealand government, all legislation that they passed since 1986 has known a voice.
No, no, that's not correct. That's not correct. It wasn't the corporation that passed it. It was the elected representatives. So you're getting the Crown and the corporation mixed up with the Parliament. They're two different things. There's three parts of government, three arms of government. One is the Parliament. One is the corporation or the Crown. And one is the administration. And then one is the courts and the police. Those three go together. The law... Somebody's muted you.
Sorry, Liz. There we are. That's OK. I was actually aiming to mute Carl, but it... See, this is where people have got misled about, we're not under the law, you know, we can do what we want, and you know, da, da, da. No, you can't. Right? But neither can they. Right? Remember that. We are all under the law. So people can't, you know... And this is what they're stirring this bullshit up all of the time. Like, what's his name? Mitchell is trying to do.
Charlie Mitchell is trying to do. Trying to say, oh, it was all about, you know, it was going to be, well, he doesn't say anarchy or anything like that. You were talking about the minerals before. Now, when the Minerals Act, that came into the 1924 Land Act, didn't it? Yeah, that's right. It's 1924, I think, the coal gets pinched. Yeah, and that was put in for financial gain. Oh, yeah, absolutely. But... But the people who were elected would have had to actually have that run by them.
Okay? So what we're saying is, okay, they've had their go at it. Now we're going to say, okay, but the land's allodial. So if we're occupying it, you buzz out there, because under allodial, there is no overlord. What they're saying, basically, is they're the landlord. But they can't be the landlord unless New Zealand was taken by a conquest. See, that's what happened in England. And they've still got tons of common land there, which is basically what we call public spaces.
They call common land. It belongs to the public, right? But when you've got a conquest, you've got blood is spilt, that's a way of taking land. That is a way of taking land. But we don't have to go to that. We don't have to raise armies and do that. The British never did that. The British came here and did their administrative stuff, right, and negotiated. Yeah, of course they did. And, you know, so actually there was no stealing of land.
There was no rape and pillage in this country. But that's what they're trying to teach the young ones now. They're trying to redo our history. But, you know, too late. We've already got the documents. We know what went on. Michelin man Grant is going to talk his way out of the scandal. Well, you know, this is the thing. It needs to be, it needs to be, he can talk whatever. He can say whatever. But the public, this is a court of public opinion we're talking about here.
Man, that is good news, isn't it? And Slater. Oh, they're dirty so-and-sos. The whole three of them. Yeah? Yeah. The whole three of them. I mean, look at, look at, what's his name? Our so-called PM. Didn't Damien O'Connor say years ago that Labour was a gaggle of gays? Damien O'Connor say that, did he? Yeah, yeah, a number of years ago he said the Labour Party is a gaggle of gays. Oh, yeah. 48% of the government are gay.
Yeah. Well. I was going to say, we'd probably be lucky if that's all they were, to be fair. They're probably a whole lot more. Yeah. Nefarious than that. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that being gay is kind of, you know, well, let's see. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.
But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.
But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But. But.
