N8WUNZ 20230519 (F) Cases Against the State - Pt 2

The main ideas from this information are that there is a constant state of war with the state, with topics such as the pandemic, land and resource grabbing, collapsing commercial systems, and the impact on small and medium-sized businesses. The speaker mentions a decision that is expected from the Employment Relations Authority, and they discuss legal responses and potential actions. They also talk about cases against the state and mention the Nuremberg Code. There is a mention of lawyers and the Law Society, and the speaker expresses frustration with the lack of action. Hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, hei, he constant state of war with the state. The state is in a constant state of war with us at the moment. It, you know, it is the vax, of course, the pandemic, the grabbing of land, the grabbing of resources, the threat of collapsing the commercial system, the rape and pillage of small and medium-sized businesses. This is off the topic. Which one is off the topic? Oh, you're talking amongst yourselves about what's on and what's off topic. You're not talking to me. Okay, so just quickly to go back to when can we expect, because I think people, because we're living in a time of this just this constant rollover of news, people think that we're going to get results out quickly. The 17th was the day, Wednesday was the last day that they heard submissions. I think they had to have the submissions in the week before and the 17th was the last day of the hearings. Now, I don't know how long they'll sit on those because the 17th was just one day of the hearings. I should think they had, the 17th was, sorry, the week before was the Wednesday. I would have thought they'd had, probably Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. I don't think they would have had more than three days of hearings. Although, they might have, they might have. Yeah, because they must have had to leave sometime for late submissions. So I don't know how many people who spoke on the 17th were, you know, just, you know, how many there were beforehand. You don't have to consider all of those. I think they had a closed mind. I think they want to do it. My response is always a legal response. My response is to say, no you can't. And as soon as you come out with a decision, there's going to be a judicial review of the members of the Select Committee, I think. That's probably a good start. In terms of what we will do as a union, as I already told the authority, as I already told the authority, we've got a, the CEO of Education New Zealand has got a target on their back. There might be people who complain to the police on the criminal aspect of it all. Ours will be all entirely civil, in the sense of civil law. Not that we're going to be nice and polite to them. And of course we're organising, we're organising the union members who are teachers to do Section 83. Section 83, I mean, I like to, I really like to talk about our solutions and our side of the battle because people get depressed if you talk too much about what they're doing to us. I'd rather talk about, oh hi Kylie, I'd rather talk about what we're doing to them, right, and what our potential is. And I don't care if people say, oh but the, you know, forewarned is forearmed. Yeah, go for it, because we want to see what they're going to put up in their defence. We'll talk, we'll take some questions in a while, otherwise we're going to get too far, soldier Wayne. So in terms of, we've got some weapons, we're going to take action on that. And the talk and views and information coming in is being sustained in the chat, Section 83. Oh Erica, I just said to Wayne, hang on, what have you got Erica, better bow to... Hello, I just shared a post on the Facebook page, if anyone is interested in compiling, I shouldn't say compiling, pounding on the complaints, there's a certain iwi trust that is offering $50 cash for tomorrow to go and get medical treatments. And I put in a template for a cease and desist. The cease and desist letters tend to get ignored, I never get any response in the past, but the Advertising Standards Authority, that's a good one. You're not allowed to advertise a medicine unless you have a name and address of what the medicine is. So compare this to say, if you see an aspirin ad in the newspaper or a magazine, down the bottom it'll say, you know, this is from whichever pharmaceuticals and their address at Newmarket. So this particular advertisement breaches the Advertising Standards Authority, so anyone who sees the post, please feel free to use your email and send a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about the certain trust offering $50 and not following the proper, the proper process, sorry not process, the proper, well I guess it is a process, you can't just advertise a medical product without some kind of contact. So that was number one. Their event is tomorrow, so yeah, surely it won't get stopped. I'm very saddened to find out a couple of weeks ago a wee girl in my daughter's class died of cancer. I know she and her friend went and got the carrot juice together. Sorry, my daughter's watching Britain's Got Talent, she loves it. Yeah, I'm just talking. Yeah, we have stopped these kids, like, you know, it just, it's really saddening. The T-cells drop, which is stated in a report from Australia, and I'll share, I think I've shared that link before, it's an Australian Freedom of Information request. It's called the Pfizer clinical report and it says that after two doses they noticed rapid drop in T-cells and has concerns about long-term immunity and then, you know, a nine-year-old dies six or eight months later with some kind of cancer in their brain. Yeah, it's just tragic. Anyway, later this month, by the end of May, there's going to be a decision on the Employment Relations Authority from a certain government worker and all I can say is that this person was mandated out with any kind of policy and let's see how this particular authority member responds. They have 90 days, I think they're down to like the last 15, so hopefully they're not spending their 90 days inventing stories and going out of their way. Regardless of that, there's been lots of settlements, you know, these companies don't want to be in the public record. I'm looking forward to the public, sorry, the government authority being on the public record and there's lots and lots of, yeah, lots of good stuff happening, especially what Liz has been saying about the 90 days and how there's actually six years on that. For my case for the Sport New Zealand, I've submitted to the High Court about costs and when a case has public interest and our wonderful advocate Karen shared all these public interest cases and these cases, they actually were unsuccessful. However, the judge did not award costs. They said because it's public interest, it has to go to the court. So I've submitted this to the court, listed the cases, one of them was the midwives, the other one was I think NZT SOS, another one was an employment case. One of them was actually against the state and their lawyers said they weren't going to go after costs because they acknowledged that it was a public interest issue. COVID-19 is a public interest, right? We've all been locked down. Lots of people have lost their jobs. There's been a big impact. The press definitely don't talk about the impact. They don't use the D word, discrimination. They don't go into all the details of what the impact is but there is a huge impact and COVID-19 is going through the courts. So I think that's a pretty good, very wonderful research from our advocate Karen on how many cases have actually said no, there's been no costs. The last case that I mentioned was Oriwood Church and others against the Minister for COVID response and that case was on the lockdown and how they weren't allowed to worship because worshipping and religion is in the Bill of Rights. That was the case where the Crown said we will not pursue costs because this is public interest. Clearly religion is public interest and I'm saying that, yes, sport's not religion, although it is for those watching the Super 15 tonight, I'm sure, or whatever it's called. That's where they are, the other 20, huh? Yeah, they're watching Super Rugby. Sport's not public interest, but, sorry, it is public interest but there's a big proportion. Yeah, so yeah, that's my high-level update. I'll pass the mic to whoever's next. Yeah, thank you. I was kind of, thanks very much Erika, and I had it on my list but of course I got sort of carried away with all sorts of things and thank you because it's very immediate that to stop these jabbers from going further and be making it, Erika didn't mention, but be making it a sausage sizzle in a kid's disc. Just hideous. Yeah, aiming at the young ones, yeah. It's tragic, it's tragic. When they're talking on that ad about giving three-year-olds the flu jab on their knees, it's horrible. Yep, yeah. So, yeah, so we have to, you know, we have to do what we can where we can. Other battles against the state, the case that I mentioned on Wednesday night, had a lot more thought on it, a lot more, looked into it a lot more. I called Steve Oliver, who's up in front, you know, WorkSafe took him to court, wanted to find him. The case that I mentioned on Wednesday night, for the people who weren't there and the people who were here and are still thinking about it, or we always need, you know, to let these things settle in and let the implications come to us. But it was WorkSafe was suing NEMA in the district court over Section 36.2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. The Health and Safety at Work Act, you remember, many employers said, oh, but we have to, you know, we have to guard our workplaces. The case was looking at what about people who, and so by that, and by the wording of the orders, we can see that they're using the health and safety, they're using the jurisprudence out of the Health and Safety at Work Act. That's the area of law we're looking at. And so if you're working under that Act, you've got to follow the whole Act. You can't cherry pick it. But what WorkSafe had done, they'd sued, and here we've got volcanoes again, they sued everybody over what happened at White Island. And the case, see, this is how long it takes for these cases to wind their way. It was 20, what year was that? 2017 or 16? It was quite a long time ago. And anyway, so it just got to, they're just starting to, because they haven't finished with it yet. There were so many people they sued. Their argument was that NEMA, which is the, what is it again, civil, they work under the Civil Defence Emergency Act. Are they first responders or something like that? 2019 it was. 2019, okay. So they were saying, so the case came before the district court because they get prosecuted. It's a strict liability offence. You can't insure against risk in that situation. So what the courts said was to WorkSafe, you're wrong. It's only supposed to, the employer or the PCBU only has responsibility for the workplace. And the best thing for us that they said was occupational safety. Of course, now I've been saying right from the beginning, WorkSafe had no right to be in, to going around and pushing work bosses to interfere in the contracts of their employees in terms of a public health issue. What was a public health issue? Because the only way that you can, the employer has any duty is under, is towards something that's arising out of the work of the business itself. The case, have we got a citation for that at all? Did I send you a citation? I didn't send it over to you. I'm sorry, Emma. That's right. I'll put the case, it's only five pages long, easy read, up on the union, or Emma might put it up for me, up on the union website. Just whichever you want to do, Liz, just email it to me and I can put it up. Yeah, I'll just email it to you and if you would put it up, that would be good. Another one, another find of Karen's, by the way. She's amazing. I hadn't had a chance to really absorb it because I think I got it Wednesday morning and as usual, the day went by without me even being able to read it to the end. But yeah, I had the chance to have a good read of it. The charge was dismissed. The judge made comments about how the WorkSafe's own obligations to monitor and impose safety conditions would be potentially vast. And he also said that there was no evidence that WorkSafe had given any instructions to NEMA about what it should do about third parties. Well, not third parties because they didn't have a workspace there. But WorkSafe were pretty keen on getting their instructions about what to do about something that's none of their business, which is public health, into workplaces. So the whole premise of the attack on workplaces was not founded on law. There was no duty of employers to order vaccines to be lumped onto their workers. Just the same as that there wasn't any... Everybody outside the workplace who got it for social reasons did it voluntarily. The worker was the one who was forced and they were unlawfully forced because there was no duty, there was no obligation. And now we've got a case saying that. Now they're talking about the third person. So we will... About the other person, right? So they're not talking... They're saying the WorkSafe and the... If you've got a workplace and workers, you've got an obligation under the Health and Safety at Work Act. But what is obvious that we can draw out of there is that it's only an obligation about industrial diseases. It's nothing to do with public health. The public health realm, the obligations fall on every... You know, fall on, well, civil defence, I suppose, to a certain extent. But they're all under the Health Act 1956. All of those obligations about what you've got to do in a pandemic or in a public health emergency. The name of the Act, public health response, right? Public health response, not occupational health response. True, yeah. Wrong area. Wrong area. So the case against the state cases against the state. They're just up to here, right? Good thing we've got plenty of time. The... I think that was... Anybody else? Geoff, you were wanting to... No, it wasn't Geoff. Who was it, Wayne? The soldier. The soldier had your hand up and I said, if you can wait a little while so we can get some stuff. And I'll go into... We can have discussion and questions now, if you like, guys. Steve, why can't we use the Pfizer reports? We can. Absolutely, we can. Yeah. Yeah. Those cases, you know, those... I have not heard of any cases in New Zealand. Oh, this is... These cases, Wayne, are to do... The ones in Australia are to do with the reports being available to the state and being ignored. And it was the case here as well. Those will be judicial review cases. They will arise. They will arise. Also, there are cases... But they tend to be brought by... I think the better... Not the better, because there's always... You know, justice is going to affect us all. Whether we had a jab, we didn't have a jab, whether we lost our job, didn't lose our job. Justice is what we're after for everybody. I believe that the... What do you call... In terms of injured people, they should start looking at suing the doctors and suing the needle wielders, right? No informed consent. You know, we've got plenty of proof that there is no informed consent legally. Yep. Yep. So, Wayne, is it soldier's claim? I think he's got his hand up. Yep. We've talked about this before. We know that the New Zealand government's the corporation. So would it be classed as civil or criminal? I just brought up... Both. Both, Wayne. I brought up the Nuremberg Code. Now, in the beginning, there was only 46 countries. Now there's 146. Now, I heard that there's one happening in Australia. How come no one's brought this attention, just this, to this country? These are crimes against humanity. Like I said, I wrote, Jacinda Ardern's kept publicly on TV. She personally does not recognise the 1947 Nuremberg Code. Of course she doesn't. We'll bring an executor. But the point is, these are crimes against humanity. It's affected everybody's family. This winter, they'll bring another bullshit virus in to justify all the deaths. There are going to be thousands of dead people. And you think that it's right that some greedy bastards, sorry, some greedy fat politicians who are doing backhands behind closed doors are going to walk away from it? That was the whole purpose of 146 countries signing the Nuremberg Code in 1947. So this kind of stuff never happens again, and it's happening right in front of us. Yep. And we're not doing anything about it. Well, I'll tell you who's not doing anything about it. Lawyers aren't doing anything about it. You know that you're contracted to the Law Society. No, it's not. No, it's not. Oh, the Law Society just trucks us for politicians. There is no contract between me or anybody else in the Law Society. But the fact of the matter is, the lawyers work for the government at the end of the day. No, they don't. No, they don't. The Law Society admitted that the lawyers lay in court. Yeah, well, the Law Society is a society. Lawyers individually have got free, they're free as anybody else to pursue justice. If lawyers are free, well, why did lawyers have to be vaccinated before they could practice law in court? Well, they didn't, did they? Well, I know a lot of lawyers who were vaccinated. Yeah, well, no, they chose that. If you were vaccinated, you couldn't defend anybody in court. No, they didn't have to be. Well, how come we've had lawyers in court who obviously weren't vaccinated? Well, yeah, you got me on that one. Well, Sue Gray went into court a number of times. I know Sue Gray wasn't. I know that Karen Murphet wasn't. I'm just trying to think. And there was another guy who had the Baby Will case. There were other lawyers who were supporting that case. They're not vaccinated. I read a report and it said that the lawyers must be vaccinated before they practice law. And a lot of people lost their jobs. A lot of lawyers lost their jobs. No, they didn't. No, they didn't. The information was incorrect. I do apologise. That's OK. So, you know, I mean, if lawyers are saying that we couldn't, you know, they couldn't do anything because, you know, they had to be vaccinated and they'd sworn an oath to the bar or something. Bullshit. That's rubbish. If you're hiding behind that, Wayne, you're having your arm. The thing is, they are reading the law. They should know the law. They can go through the law, the same as we have, on the last, how many, three years worth of Zoom. I mean, really? No, it's convenient to hide behind. Somebody made me do it. Right? Yeah. It's a great convenience, Wayne. You know that, eh? Yeah. So what do you do? Do you ask them why they've got this law? Don't worry. Don't worry, Wayne. We're getting there. We really are. We really are. We absolutely are. Don't let them panic you. No. No. Because that's what these people did. You know, they didn't think to themselves, now, you know, what could I do to just hang in there and save my life? I mean, out of anybody that could come from an educated point of view, it must be them and the doctors, surely. If anybody was going to... Yeah, I don't know. They sort of got a little bit carried away with their status and just couldn't give it up and couldn't, you know, just thought, I can't live without the, you know, the kudos. And no, they can't. You can't be struck off for not doing anything. Yeah. We just shared one of the previous... You know, apparently Sue Gray and what was, you know, the, what do you call it, the Law Society was jumping up and down about here. Maybe that's what you're thinking about. But in a court of law, there is no reason to strike Sue Gray off for pursuing a case. It's like, you know, we've got the situation at the moment where a certain law firm is trying to make out that they can sue us for pursuing a case for our member. Well, they're dreaming. They're dreaming. But a lot of it's designed to kind of, you know, panic you, get you scared, make you jump to attention. Geoff, you were going to say something. Erica's still got her hand up, but I think she's gone to watch Britain's Got Talent with Rosie. Geoff? Yes, you said a little while ago about suing the doctors. Now, I would like to offer a little perhaps suggestion. I know I bang on about insurance and all that stuff, but I went to see my doctor last week about my driver's license and asked him again. I said, look, if somebody came after you to make a claim against you for medical malpractice, what would you do? And he said, well, I would have to help them by contacting my insurance company. Okay. Now, that is what I've been sort of banging on about for a while. Yeah, well, that's right. That's right. But people still have to go and say to the doctor, I'm going to sue you. Right. Exactly. But they're probably not doing it, just like I haven't got around to suing the cop yet, but I'm still working on it. But, you know, Geoff, we've got in these civil claims, we've got six years. We can say that about everything now. We're pretty much. After the Frye case, which I talked about a couple of weeks ago, eh? That's the case. It's an employment law case. And all you lovers of the common law, it's a common law action on contract, breach of contract. So in terms of suing your lawyer, I think some lawyers are going to get sued for bad advice by these companies, actually. But I do encourage the companies to look at going after WorkSafe. I said to Steve, I said, give me the name of the lawyer that you've got, because I've met him once before. I said, I want to talk to him about this case. He said, I think you need to put in a, now you're in court with them, put in a cross claim and sue them for damages. But anyway, getting back to suing doctors, yeah, medical malpractice if you're injured. If you're not injured, I think they've got the backs on the workplace and the workplace. Sue them. You know, you were the patient. If they turned you down, you know, yeah, well, there's medical malpractice. There's other civil claims that you can make against them. Damages. If they had a hand in, because you couldn't get it, you couldn't get an exemption when 7A was available. There's a claim there. You know, there's a number of civil claims that you can make against doctors. Also, again, Liz, at the risk of being like a drama phone record, all those other things that are defined as personal injuries in an insurance policy, which has not statute barred under ACC or anything else. All those can be included. Yeah, those are the mental injury ones, aren't they? Yeah, but no, it's mental anguish, not mental injury. There's a difference. There's a definition of mental injury in ACC, but it's not mental anguish. Mental anguish, yeah. Stress, humiliation, defamation, malicious prosecution. There's a whole raft of them. In employers' public and professional liability policies, all these personal injuries are defined. And these are things that the lawyers don't know. No disrespect to you all. Yeah, because not a lot of lawyers are insurance lawyers. So, yeah, there's a whole lot that lawyers don't know. There's a whole lot that lawyers don't know. You would think they'd act in their own interest in terms of the facts, but no, most of them were just like, oh, you know, you just. They got, I think, this propaganda about people being inquisitive, being tinfoil hat wearers, got to lawyers. And they were just like, especially when people went after, you know, sex lawyers or said, you know, you're not doing your job properly or slagged them off. It kind of, you know, it served the, and this is Marxism. This is, you know, putting up barriers of class, putting up barriers of colour, creed, race, gender, whatever they can get their hands on to divide people, they abused. Yeah, absolutely. Really, they abused it. Yeah. I just like to say this and then I'll shut up. OK. Every single lawyer that I contacted and asked them the question, how do I file a personal injury claim in New Zealand, wrote back and said, you can't do it. It's covered under ACC. I then sent them a copy of Section 26 of the ACC Act. I said, well, have a look at this. See what you think. Well, you can. And every one of them did a 180 degree turn and admitted that if it's not, and it's in a lawyer's website information. It says if it's not statute barred, you can file suit. Yeah. And it's that simple. So there you go, folks. Give it a go. They only want to do, you know, sexy law. You know, what they consider, you know, sexy law. You know, it's either law that makes them a whole lot of money or a whole lot of status. Going after people who've been injured by doctors is not very nice. You know, as far as they're concerned. Because they are sort of like, oh, but the doctors and us, you know, I have my brother-in-law. And, you know, my father was, and, you know, my sister is a matron. And oh, God knows what. You know, it's what I call a political class, Jeff. Political in a status way. Yeah. You write to your doctor or your lawyer or your chiropractor or whoever and ask them for details of their insurance. You'll find what you need to get you going. Get you started. That's right. Yeah, it's a good idea. And it gets you kind of a link and you feel confidence. If you're wanting to start, take Jeff's advice. Write to them and you'll start to get the feel for it, yeah? If you don't, you'll never know. You'll never know. But, you know, we're teaching and you're learning all of the time. We're going to succeed in a big way. Okay. We got any more questions? We might have an early night. We might say that. Hello. Everybody's got a question. One other thing before I do go. We got, I don't know whether I've mentioned this, but we, a friend did an OIA to Inland Revenue in DC. And we got all their insurance information, no bother. Chapter and verse. All in the policy. You just look for personal injuries and you make stuff. They've all got it. Yeah. All right. I'm done. Hey, what was that, Erica put a chat in about she talked to lots of lawyers about her case. Yeah, I talked to lots of lawyers about my case a year ago. And, oh, no, no, no, that's not, no, there's no chance of that. No, they're not doing anything wrong. No. But, oh, do you want to file? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I'll help you. Fine. So you don't believe it's got merit, but you'll take my money in charge of the hourly rate and give me invoices. Thanks very much. One of them, I sat on the phone for half an hour trying to reason with this brainwashed idiot. Like, they work for the bar. I mean, I agree with what the person was saying earlier. You know, they may not swear allegiance to the government, but they definitely are loyal to the bar. Yeah. But that thing about loyalty to the bar, Erica, is to do with if you're in court and you are aware of a case that is not on your side, right, you do still have to acknowledge it. And if you're a good lawyer, you should actually bring it to the attention of the court. That's what loyalty is. You have a duty to be a part of the administration of justice. That's what you're here to do. Yeah. Agreed. They have been. You can get the sack. You can get the sack if you lie to the court. And then you get stuck off. But losing your redjoe, you know, that is kind of the first step. And then they take it to the bar sometimes to say strike. And that's when they get scared. The same with, you know, doctors who don't follow the Hippocratic oath so hard. And that's great. That's great because that is supposed to discipline doctors and lawyers so they don't do naughty stuff. And that is a protection. You know, people can get, lawyers can get struck off for charging too much and not doing the work that they said they would do. Yes. Nicolai saying didn't work with the doctors. Yeah, I mean, the complaints process for the Health and Disabilities Commissioner is just obviously completely backlogged. And, you know, there are more than a year behind. Right. So even worse than the authority and stuff. Yeah, I mean, the Employment Relations Authority. What are we now, May? And we're getting dates in October. So that's five months. Not as bad as the Health and Disability Commissioner, you know, a year, if not longer. The HRC, they seem to be a few months. Oh, gosh. I'm trying to remember how long. I think they're about four or five months before they schedule something. You know, looking at Alan Holtz's cases, for example, you know, he's got cases from three years ago and he gets decisions on them. So generally, this is how long these cases take. You have to go and stab someone to get heard in the courts. True. Oh, by the way, while I'm here, Jo, I'm in court. Can I just quote this forward, please, Your Honour? Yeah. I mean, when it comes to being stabbed or murdered, it's like, you know, charges on Friday and the court on Monday. It doesn't take very long, but that's probably quite a good thing since we don't want criminal, you know, hurt. But, you know, they've been running free for three years and getting paid for it at the same time, all of these murderers and thieves. Yes, yes, in a very subversive and undercutting manner. And I still, yeah, I'm still in shock about this particular trust. The Official Information Act request I did a few months ago, they said they bought 18 million doses and they've got 12 million to go. So this is going to keep on going, right? They're going to keep on pushing this. They'll repurpose it. They'll put a different label on it and say this is for, you know, because it's poison. And they still won't release the contract. So the more pressure, the more complaints, it's really just about voices. Lots of them complaining, you know, stop these six million doses, you know, the less people that get maimed and injured. Because we all end up, well, yeah, we all end up paying in our health system because they're all getting, they're all going through it when they have an adverse event. What was I hearing about them bringing in, oh, the ferries, right? The ferries, the people that were trying to go from Auckland to Devonport had their ferry cancelled four times. And sometimes they were cancelling them after the ferry was due to be in port. And they said, oh, well, we haven't. The reason is that all of us haven't got enough stuff. It's been chronic for the last two years. I wonder what that was. Paula's had a vaccine. Paula's had a vaccine policy, right? And they said, oh, well, you know, so now we want immigration to relax the immigration law. So they're on the list to come in and replace the seafarers and tug operators and God knows what. Hey, can I ask a quick question about fluoride? Just going off topic a little bit. Fluoride, that's another huge one that's going to be. Yeah, I was watching a little clip with a couple of women down in Invercargill, I think it was, who seems to be the hotbed of confronting the council. Could that be classed as a forced medical treatment under the Health Act? Well, now, that is the case, right, that Judge Justice Cook said in Yardley was stopping him because it was decided at Supreme Court level. This is the case of South Taranaki District Council against or somebody against South Taranaki District Council or something like all or nothing. They've got a funny name, this group. Anyway, they had a case because South Taranaki District Council was putting fluoride in the water. There were five judges, I believe. It was a five-judge panel, so a very important case. Two judges, and I think it was Young and the other one was Sean Elias, expressed concerns about medicating the water. The other three took the bait, oh, they're doing it overseas, it's all good. And that's got quite a lot of history, that case. But, yeah, that is kind of what's sitting at the top of the fluoridation thing. Now, the thing I've said about the fluoridation case is that, of course, it went through as a judicial review because it was a council, but they said they shouldn't be doing this, right. So it went through, it starts off at the High Court, and then it goes, winds its way up, depending on, you know, if it gets appealed. But I'd have to read the case again, but I think that the problem might have been that they took it as a group instead of an individual. Now, all of these, as I've said, all of these NZ Bora cases must be taken by individuals. So you can form a group like they did with the NZDESOS and TESOS, but you've got to front it with the name. So Yardley, it's called Yardley because Mr Yardley was one of the individual police, police or army, I think it was police, was one of the individual police officers who didn't want to get vaccinated. Now, what I've said, simple to remember, tell it to everybody you know, there are no group rights in New Zealand Bora. So you cannot do a balancing act between a group, what you say is a group right, and public health, and an individual right. The individual can never be defeated by the group under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Every person, everyone, every, it doesn't say individual in our one, but I think in the Australian equivalent of our health act, the word individual is used pretty much throughout. They don't say everybody or every person, they say every individual. OK, so that, that, yeah, medication of that, yeah, that's what, that's what those two judges and that, but because they were outvoted by the other three, that's why it still sits there. Now, I don't know where we're going to, where we're going to go with this, but it was one of the things I brought up in the Turner case. And, you know, so it's in the public, it's in the court record. And I said, there is no, there is no group right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So, and it goes back to this thing of, oh, we did the, you know, we did a, we did a survey of all of our workers and, you know, 99% of them or most of them or, you know, whatever, said they thought it was a good idea for people to get vaccinated. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. Your individual right holds against the world. The whole world cannot defeat you. It doesn't matter if you're the only person in the world who's had that right breached. You win. Under correct, incorrect interpretation. We will see. Okay, Wayne's got his hand up. Just another question. When doctors sign the medical ethics code, under the medical ethics, does it not have the 1947 Eurobird code in the medical ethics that they sign to become a doctor? Right. Now, they should, shouldn't they? And that would bring it to their attention. I think you're right, Wayne. I believe there is. I believe there is. So, therefore, they're breaching the ethics. Oh, it is in there, is it? I believe so. I'm not 100% sure. Okay. But pretty close to it. Well, here's the thing. Under the, and this was an interesting thing said in the hearings on Wednesday. One of the, and I talked a little bit about it on Wednesday night, and I talked about a woman who, she wasn't talking, she wasn't talking about what a lot of the rest of us were talking about, about the highly sexualized curriculum with that, you know, pretty much as pedophilia on steroids. She was a person who was talking about disabled children in the, in the, in the work, in the schools, and she was saying they're not getting a fair deal. And she said that these international treaties should all be part of every piece of legislation that New Zealand, you know, puts out, you know. So, for example, in the education, the Education Act, what's it called? It's called the something training, Training Act. It's got some sort of, instead of a simple name, like the Education Act, they've got a different sort of name for it. Anyway, it's basically the Education Act, that they should be incorporated into it, New Zealand's international treaties as well. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is in it, in terms of, especially, and that's what I talked about on Wednesday, that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is in there. I didn't, no, I didn't talk about it. I talked about the right, I was mostly talking about the interference, the political interference is actually not, not allowed. But, yeah, the Bill of Rights Act is, is especially in the nurses and in the doctors, sorry, not in the doctors, the nurses, well, Medical Practitioners Act. It's in the, and they call theirs something else, Assurance Act or something like that. Instead of just calling it the, you know, the, not the Medicines Act, but, you know, the Medical Employment Act or something like that. You know, what, what is, they don't want to make things easy for people to understand. And we know that very well. Yeah. We try and make it easy. Yeah. But I agree, I agree. The Code of Ethics must surely take cognizance of that. Karleen might give us a wee update, Liz. What's that? Karleen might give us an update. Oh, yeah, let's hear from Karleen. She's here. Oh, Amy. Yeah, please. Yeah, sorry. I was hoping Amy would come on, Amy Beata, but she's having connection problems. I'd much rather the mahi that she's been doing come from her. So hopefully she'll be able to come in on Wednesday, because I think she's doing some fantastic work with what she's putting together to protect not only parents, but teachers as well. So I was really hoping she would come in here. It's absolutely beautiful what she's doing. And she's the one working with the parents who reached out to her in regards to the PCR testing at one of the schools down. I think it's Whanganui somewhere. So only she really has that information. I'm just so swamped with what I'm doing. So I guess a short update from me is I'm getting ready to go into battle with Oranga Tamariki again. I've got two big hui with them next week to help out three different families. But everything's going good. So, yeah, just best if Amy comes in and cordials for this, because she's the legislation and acts guru. I can't really talk to her as good as she can. Fantastic. Good to be here, though. Good to be here. Now, that's fantastic. Now, let's organise that, eh, Liz. We'll get hold of Amy. Yeah, I'll make sure that we can make some time to hear from Amy. That'd be great. Yeah. Thanks, Carleen. I've had a wee listen to Amy and Carleen chatting. And, yeah, Amy, yeah, she's done some really cool stuff. Yeah. Yeah. So as we all are, we're all trying. Wayne's asking, what one Bill of Rights, 1688 or the 1990? The Bill of Rights, the New Zealand Bill of Rights, 1990, is pretty much based on the principles of the 1688. Also, 1688 is your rights against the Crown with the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights. They're both New Zealand legislation, right? And it was kind of surprising to think of the Bill of Rights, 1688, as being New Zealand legislation. But that's the basis of our constitution, right? Our constitution. The Government got rid of our sovereignty in 1986. We've talked about this privately. And that's the constitution of 1986. It's non-avoid. And we're still using the 1852 constitution. That's married up with the 1688 Bill of Rights, which our ministers in the House who are supposed to comply under the Cabinet Manual. Now, our ministers are not public servants. They're a corporation. So, therefore, when they broke that, when they did that in 1986, and what was his name? Trevor Millard. No, not Trevor Millard. I can't remember. Jeffrey Palmer. That's right. In the report from Jeffrey Palmer, he states that only a few people questioned about the change. So, he felt it wasn't necessary to make it public. But the whole thing… I've seen it. Pardon? I've seen it too. I've seen you, the email. You can read it for yourself. Believe it. Yeah, I believe it. But the thing is that we are still under the 1852 constitution of New Zealand and also under the 1688 Bill of Rights. Remember, I asked for the 1979 Cabinet Manual from Parliament. That's classified. And that's all tied up with Muldoon. Well, this is the thing. I mean, Cabinet Manuals, they're supposed to be open. I don't know that you can classify a Cabinet Manual because that is, you know, it's just a manual. Maybe there's OIAs, but they're saying, no, we're not going to tell you what they were talking about. But the Cabinet Manual, they must comply by. They must follow under the Cabinet Manual. Yes, they do. That's part of the arrangements of our constitution as well. That's kind of like their side of things, right? Cabinet Manual, page five of balance. It has to be struck between majority power and minority right, between the sovereignty of the people exercised through Parliament and the rule of law, and between the right of elected governments to have their policies enacted into law and the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values. The answer cannot always lie with simple majority decision making. Now, this is, remember, you're talking to this. This is the Cabinet Manual talking to politicians, right? This isn't law. This is guidance for the politicians. Now, if you've got, so when they're talking about majority and minority, they're talking about policies, right? But if that policy, once it's enacted into the law, then one person, now they can be, you know, somebody who voted for the government or somebody who didn't vote for the government. It doesn't matter because politics and law are two separate things. If their rights are infringed upon, and I mean, if you look at Jeff's situation, right, not all of us got dragged off by the police and chucked in the cells. Some of us did. I didn't go for dragging that. I just walked nicely with them. But the thing is, it doesn't matter whether I'm part of the majority or the minority in terms of voting. My right not to be, have my rights infringed stands against the minority and the majority of voters. It doesn't matter. It's nothing to do with them. OK, so a cabinet manual is basically instructions for lawmakers, if you want to call them lawmakers, to remember that you, and that translates into that instruction in every piece of law. Every piece of, not order and not regulation, but every act of parliament must not infringe on the New Zealand Bill of Rights. So that's to make sure not one person has their rights infringed. You know, it sounds like it's to do with, oh, you know, we have to balance. No, no, no, no. The balancing is for them to keep in mind that they're not to make laws that there is a danger of the minority of one even being the rule of law is breached. If you, you know, as the rule of law has been breached numerous times over these last years, when they put the 2020 Act together, they deliberately tried to exclude the, deliberately tried to exclude the Health Act 1956. But it doesn't work because that's unlawful. Yeah, because when it came to the crunch and we asserted our right to not be vaxxed, or we asserted our right not to be, you know, masked or kept in one place when we were, there was nothing wrong with us. You know, in the end, we will win these cases, and the people who take them will win them. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. We good? I think so. So shall we say goodnight, farewell? Yep. Toodle pip. How did this New Zealand government totally ride over the New Zealand Bill of Rights and the Nuremberg Code? Because the lawyers were sleeping on the job. The main lawyer for the country, Jeff, what's his name, David Parker. I'm not sure he was sleeping on the job. You know, I think we'll find in the end that he was being paid to sleep. They couldn't have got, they couldn't have passed that Parent Act if David Parker was an honest lawyer. Okay? Yep. That's a retro answer. Yep. Awesome. No, that's fantastic. Okay. Sayonara. Yep. Very good. Thanks, everyone. See you later. Have a good one, everyone, and we'll see you next week. Yep. See you. Bye. Bye.