N8WUNZ 20230526 (F) Why Have Confidence in the Courts

The main ideas from this information are: 1. The speaker discusses the importance of trusting the courts, as they interpret the law and are crucial for justice. 2. The courts are based on English common law and the principles of the Bible (Old and New Testament). 3. The Nuremberg trials were common law courts that held the German and possibly Italian perpetrators accountable. 4. The speaker believes that corrupt judges need to be identified and removed from the system. 5. The speaker mentions concerns about the normalisation of paedophilia through the education system. 6. They refer to a video clip that highlights the struggles of presenting submissions against the normalisation of paedophilia in select committees. 7. The speaker discusses the risks of sexualisation and grooming in schools and the potential negative impact on children. 8. They mention the use of Professor Kinsey's research in sex education, which they argue is based on fraudulent and harmful data. 9. The speaker expre and then we can peer into it. Okay, yeah, we'd better head. Do the old Facebook. It's a bit broken up. The reception tonight, it's going to be a bit strange pictures sometimes by the look of things. It took a while to connect up. But you can turn off all of the pictures and just listen if you like. But when we've got pieces of the act up and when we've got the video on, have a look again. Okay, well, thank you very much, guys, for coming along. Got a lot on tonight. Just a quick, the name of it is, the name of tonight's theme is, should we trust the courts? I say, we have no choice. Because the courts are where the law is interpreted. The law is what is going to either sink or save us. But the law is like a tennis ball in a courtroom, right? The two players are the two opposing lawyers or legal teams. And the judge is a referee. That's what's called an adversarial system. And that's what we have. It's based on English common law and equity. And its principles are the two books of the Bible, the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament provides us with the Ten Commandments. And the New Testament provides us with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the way that we are to live those Ten Commandments. That's why it's called Judeo-Christian law. Okay? The English common law, and it has been there prior to all of the kings who ever started to practice in, if you like, not practice. Whoever decided to hold court and make judgments over their subjects, the law existed before that. So it's way, it's, you know, it's 2,000 years old, the principles. The courts that heard the Nuremberg atrocities were common law courts because they were convened by the Americans who have a common law system, the same as us, because they used to be a colony. Okay? They were, so the common law courts of Nuremberg were held in Nuremberg for the German, the German and the, I don't know if they had any Italians in there actually. Probably. And because, you know, it didn't matter really where the venue was, it was who was doing the, you know, they were all gathered together in Nuremberg. One lot that missed out getting brought before the courts last time were the churches. I don't think they'll miss out this time. We didn't have, you didn't have the Pope last time. I think we might find the Pope's in there this time. And then the other venue was Tokyo and they are known as the Tokyo trials. Why I say we must use the courts is because we need to ferret out the corrupt judges. Now, there were, as part of the Nuremberg trials, there was a series of trials called the judges trials. There were at least 12 judges or people high up in the, you know, so they're called judges trials, but you had one of them was the Minister of Justice for, in the Third Reich. Okay, so he was tried. Not too many got executed, but some of them got life imprisonment. There should have been probably an extra big trial for lawyers as well. I don't think the lawyers are going to miss out this time either. Right, so have faith people, because we know what the, we know what our law is based upon. It's based upon the Bible, the two, the old and the New Testament. And you don't really think that God's going to let them get away with this, do you? So, yeah, hang in there and be strong and don't go saying, oh, well, we have to set up something different. We own those courts as a matter of property. They're paid for and their salaries are all paid for by, out of the public purse, which you are part of. Even if you don't pay any particular form of tax, or you think you don't, even the GST, et cetera, that's a form of tax. Okay, so you're all paying for it. You're the owners and you're going to have your, you're going to have your justice out of them. So we don't need to go around worrying about that. Right, so I think a lot of people have come on tonight, though, to hear about what we talked about a couple of Zooms ago was the attempt by the state to normalise paedophilia through the education system. Now, that may seem to be a startling sort of statement for someone who hasn't heard about it or hasn't been following, but that is the case. A couple of days ago, somebody put up on YouTube a, I think it was about a five-minute clip. Maybe it was a little bit longer, because if, this is one thing we've learned, if we're going to make submissions to the select committees on anything, go as a, you know, as some sort of formal group, because you only get 10 minutes. If you go as an individual, you only get five. And so you can see on that one that's going around at the moment on Facebook that they struggled to get their five minutes, because the chair of the committee, a woman called Camilla Balich, is it? Yeah, yeah. Is a through-and-through deep stater. Right, and most of the people on the committee were as well, as far as I could make out. There's four hours of hearings, four and a half, about four and a half hours of hearings on that day, the 17th of May. As submitters, we have had access to the Facebook recording. They recorded it as a Facebook recording. I should think that anybody who wanted to hear any of the other days of hearing, if they write to the select committee and say we want, we'd like the, you know, the hearing on the 16th, the hearing on the 15th of May, should be able to get those as well. Lots of viewing, so you could see a whole lot. And it could be that not everybody was focused on Clause 38 of the Bill, because, of course, the Bill comes before the Act itself. But Clause 38 was the clause that was to amend the Parent Act, which I think is the Education and Training Act, something like that, and to make it lawful that every board of trustees in the country had to have two appointed rainbow community representatives. That alarmed us to the extent that Dora Smith put us on notice that the current curriculum is pretty thoughtful. We'd been hearing hints of that. People, I think Karen Glass talked to us about one stage, her son coming home with material that was pretty bad, and they were being told not to this sexually explicit instruction, etc. They were being told not to, they didn't have to tell their parents about it. They can have these secret rainbow names if they want to, etc. So they are propagandising, grooming is the correct word, grooming our children to normalise paedophilia. If you'd like to go back a few Zooms, you'll hear some hair-raising stuff from Dora and other people who were on the Zoom. It's on N8WUNZ, I believe. What's the name of that one? On Rumble? Did you say Rumble? Yeah, N8WUNZ. Yeah, and I think it's about four Zooms back now. Yeah, you can tell by the pictures. You can tell by the pictures. There's two that have got this horrendous... I don't know what you call it. What was it? Something starting with M. I can't remember what his name was. Molak. I think the name of the god is so-called, well, beast, god or thing. Okay. Child sacrifice. Yeah. So that's the pictures on that, so if you want a quick look to see where that is. At the moment, is Dora on yet? I don't think so. Let me have a look. Okay, so we'll go. It's a 10-minute clip. Thank you, Ness. That's the link to it. Oh yeah. Ness is right on to it. Oh yeah, and I've got the link. That's in the chat there. So if you copy and paste that into your browsers, you can... Oh yeah. Yeah. Anyway, have you got that excerpt out of what the select committee provided us with? You know, if you could show us that, that'd be great. Now, hopefully, um, advance. Hopefully, the sound, computer audio. Hopefully, you'll be able to hear it. Oh no, I don't want to do that. If you like, I can talk about something else while you're having a look for that. Yeah, I've got it. I was just trying to see how to... Yeah, you just yell out when you're ready, because I just wanted to talk about the Health Act 1956 for a few minutes, in relation to, and this is why we're, you know, we're all learning legalese now, and we're all learning how to read sections of Acts. We all know what repeal of an Act is, and I'll talk about the Health Act in a minute, because it looks like Emma's got, Emma's got something going there. How's that looking? Um, not looking at anything, at me at the moment, but... I haven't shared... There we are, that's it. I haven't shared many videos, actually, so hopefully... There we are, that's it. Now, this woman in the white jacket... Oh, here we go. I'll shut up while she talks. Oh, no, you're good, you're good. I was just making sure the sound worked. Right, the woman in the white jacket is Camilla Balloch. This man's called Ibrahim Omar, I believe his name is. Yeah. He's a List MP from Atahat. He's a Labour Party MP. Yeah. Okay, and apparently somebody was saying, somebody else who was in the room was saying he was, well, she was being egged on by him. Yeah, that's right. She was being egged on by him to shut the comments up about the paedophilia. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, keep an eye on him, guys. Yeah, he was in very good position. Right, are we ready? Yep. Regards to the intended sexual education, the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Vulnerable Children's Act and the Crimes Act are all designed to prevent child sexual abuse, which includes grooming. The normalisation of sexualisation, educating a child with pornographic material in nature with the intent to teach a child that sex is normal and so is secrecy. I note that over 300 teachers were dismissed and charged for this last year. We say the system was already failing and the introduction of whose sexualised education programme will increase the risk of children and attract the sexual perpetrators who can and will seek the opportunity to sexually violate children. As a previous forensic child interviewer of children who have been sexually violated, I assure you this is a traumatic event. Part of the assessment process includes assessing grooming and interviewing the perpetrator to see if the children are safe to hear. The perpetrator normalised that the child wants sex or flirting and sexually seeking attention. Up to 90% of planning sexual violation is child grooming. The teachers are essentially asked to groom children under the guise of education. The significant risk is that in normalising this, the child who is at serious risk and is being sexually violated will no longer be easily identified and will be given the message that sexual violence and grooming is normal. They will permit the sexual offenders to continue to groom them, which is now intended to be in every classroom. The bill has been presented in schools as legislation and directing schools to adopt this before it has even been passed. What's happening, Emma? You are muted, Emma. Is she saying that you can groom kids in the classroom? Oh, you can hear me now. I don't know if Emma can hear us with the video running on her end. Yeah. Sorry, kids, I didn't realise you couldn't. I thought you were seeing the picture. We're seeing, we were seeing, we only ever saw, we could hear Dora. Yeah, the video's frozen right at the very beginning when you put it up. It hasn't gone forward from there. Ah, yeah, okay. And then we got part of the sound and then it went all quiet. What I'll do is I'll, okay, I was waiting, yeah, because I can see it. I know you lucky thing. Actually, if everybody can take their videos off and maybe it might make us. Oh, it might have been the way I shared it. What I'll do is I'll just, I'll just go back to basic share and let's try this. Okay. Yeah, I can see here. I saw, I saw. Yeah, is it all right to go? We'll go back to the beginning. Joining us by Zoom, we've got Liz and Dora, is that correct? Yes. Just can only see you and Dora. We'll just wait and see if we can get Liz as well. Liz, you've got to hit the video and the mute down the bottom. Just while we're waiting for Liz, Dora, I wonder if you could just answer. Are you a registered trade union or not? Yes. Okay, thank you. Good morning. Great, we've got both of you here. Thank you both for joining us. We've received your written submission and we've got 10 minutes now to hear from you orally. If you wish to leave some time for questions at the end, I'll leave that over to you. Thank you. Dora, the concern we have is regards to the intended sexual education. The Oranga Tamariki Act, the Vulnerable Children's Act and the Crimes Act are all designed to prevent child sexual abuse, which includes grooming. The normalisation of sexualisation, educating a child with pornographic material and nature with the intent to teach a child that sex is normal and so is secrecy. I note that over 300 teachers were dismissed and charged for this last year. We say the system was already failing and the introduction of a sexualised education programme will increase the risk of children and attract the sexual perpetrators who can and will seek the opportunity to sexually violate children. As a previous forensic child interviewer of children who have been sexually violated, I assure you this is a traumatic event. Part of the assessment process includes assessing grooming and interviewing the perpetrator to see if the children are safe to hear. The perpetrator normalised that the child wants sex or flirting and sexually seeking attention. Up to 90% of planned sexual violation is child grooming. The teachers are essentially asked to groom children under the guise of education. The significant risk is that in normalising this, the child who is at serious risk and is being sexually violated will no longer be easily identified and will be given the message that sexual violence and grooming is normal. They will permit the sexual offenders to continue to groom them, which is now intended to be in every classroom. The bill has been presented in schools as legislation and directing schools to adopt this before it has even been passed. I apologise for interrupting you. I just bring you back. We have a general standing order in New Zealand Parliament where the submissions or any speeches we make should be relevant to the bill. There isn't anything relating to what we have just seen. Absolutely there is. The language statute has not been provided. I'll just give you that warning. Please keep it relevant to the bill. It is absolutely relevant to the bill. Thank you. In regards to the research that the Ministry of Education relied on, it essentially comes from Professor Kinsley's sexology research, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Kinsley began his research on Jewish sexuality during the Holocaust. He interviewed 17,000 people, allegedly, and that included women, boys, men, girls, animals and family members. He asserted that children gay from birth to have orgasms and pedophilia and incest benefits children and that young children and infants were observed having orgasms. The institute raped infants and children in the name of research and education, and despite this, not one was reported to the authority. Kinsley was a fraud who sought to normalize illegal sexual obsessions and violations of children and infants as sexual beings from birth, and it is now adopted in our education system. Professors Maslow and Sakoda asserted Kinsley's deductions cannot be described as normal sexual behavior because they are based on evidence collected predominantly from prison inmates and supplementary data, not actual research. Kinsley-based sex education that is in our school puts children at risk. Kinsley's research formed the bedrock of the sex education in the early 60s and is adopted here in New Zealand, and it dominates the academic committees that issued accreditation for sex educators. John Bancroft, former director of the Kinsley Institute, contends all of Kinsley's data concerning children and adolescents came from one man himself, Kinsley. Kinsley was acting out his sexual violations and using pseudonyms to educate to hide his criminal activities. In his reports, he says, which the Ministry of Education relies on, that 10% of children and adolescents are homosexual. The Williams Institute records 3.5% self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual and a further 0.303% identify as transgender. Among the 3.5% who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slightly majority of 1.8%, as opposed to 1.7% who identify as gay or lesbian. About 1.1% of females and 2.2% of males self-identify exclusively as homosexual. The Ministry of Education's findings have been birthed on these stats during a time in which intentional confusion of our youth to adopt Kinsley's arguments in our education system. We say New Zealanders have lost faith and confidence in the education system when the schools acted for the Ministry of Education to force teachers and children to be test participants in the Pfizer drug trials. The Ministry of Education have done very little to gain back the relationship of trust for families who no longer believe that the Ministry of Education is... Zora, apologies, I just want to interrupt you again. There is nothing about drug trials or Pfizer in the bill, so I'd just like to bring you back to the bill. Absolutely, I'm referring to the truancy that's actually happening and we say that the focus needs to be on education and not on parenting the children within the state. We say that the sex education will only increase the desire for parents who want to withdraw children from schools, which is already a truancy issue in New Zealand that came from the Pfizer drug trials. That's why I'm saying there's already a truancy number that's quite high. This bill will increase those numbers of truancy, so it's quite relative, actually. Previously, sex education consisted of human biology and reproduction, hygiene and marriage, and this ought to continue. This is going to push the number of truancy up. That's what I say. Hei ha, tēnā koutou, kia ora. Liz, if you want to have something to say now. Thank you. Thank you, panel. The aim, really, of the bill, as we can see it, is to force the gay community to be appointed to boards. Under section 54 of the Public Services Act, this is actually political interference. Now, why we say that this will be met with resistance from our members is because, as board members, they become the employers of our members. The background as to why we feel so strongly about this is because of the sexualised curricula that is being introduced. If a member is faced with this, they will be empowered to take action over this. Also, we have a case of section 54 being heard in the Employment Court, and it goes back to 2002, and you'll probably mostly remember it, of Christine Rankin. That was the case where the Employment Court said, yes, they did have jurisdiction over CEOs. They would have jurisdiction against, if we were to take a case against the CEO of the Education Department for this slowdown effect of politically appointing board members when there is not to be interference by the state in employment matters. The Minister and the Ministry have got no legal right to be even approaching this. We will take a case immediately, should this be introduced, against the Ministry. So that is just to put you on notice of that. There is another minute left. I'll leave that for questions, if you like. Thank you. We do have one minute left. I just wanted to clarify, though, that the people on boards of trustees are not employees. Just as a clarification. Any questions, members? I can't see any questions, so I'd just like to thank you both. Well, I'll just clarify that, then, if I may. No, they are not employees, they are employers. We can take a case against them, and our members can take a case against the employers as the board, and they can take a case against the Minister. We can take a case against the Minister for the introduction of this, because they are the cause of it. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Try not to choke, Camilla. Awesome, Liz. Awesome. What qualifications does that lady need to be a part of the select committee? What's her background? I don't know. Probably being a well-paid public servant or politician for a long time. I assume that you've been in front of the select committees on a number of occasions. Do you find it's a complete waste of time? No, it won't be a complete waste of time, and this is what we're talking about tonight, OK? We have to engage this. That's the whole point of this, Wayne. Most select committees send it off to another government department to make a decision on, and if that government department makes their own story up about the evidence, you try and get that addressed. Yeah, well, the point is what we're going to use. We're not just going to go and put submissions into select committees. The point of that was to put them on notice that they've got court cases coming up that are going to affect the CEO and they're going to affect the boards of trustees because Section 80, I didn't have time to, of course, to explain Section 83 to them. We only got a few minutes, but nothing is ever wasted. No, I don't want to hear anything about wastes of time. That's exactly what we're talking about. Why do we have CEOs within our government? We both know it's a corporation. So how does a corporation pick and choose these stupid laws, what's going through? The law says this thing called separation of powers, and this is what the general public has to understand because otherwise they are completely confused about what the structure of government is, what the structure, what the duties of the courts are, what the duties of Parliament are and what the duties of the executive are. And when you saw, if you looked at the last one we had, which was called shackles on the state, I'm talking about shackles on those three branches of government. They've each got slightly different shackles, but they all have shackles, OK? We are their bosses because that's the way the law is set up. That's the way our constitution is set up. What constitution? You're talking about the 1986 or the 1854? No, no, no, no. The 1986 is an Act of Parliament that basically cuts us free from direct, I would say, at that time the Governor-General should have stopped signing off Acts of Parliament, right? I don't believe the Governor-General should have made a person of his country under the Cabinet Manual. That's very refined. It was important for him. There's a number of things. There's the Cabinet Manual, there's the 1988 Imperial Laws Application Act that basically make up the constitution. It's called unencoded. Unencoded means it's not being put into an Act of Parliament, but we have Acts of Parliament that reflect it. For example, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the 1688, which of course forms an integral part of the constitution. One day we'll encode it. You're saying the 1688 Bill of Rights has been repealed? No, no, no. You can go and you can look on the New Zealand Legislation website and you'll have the 1688 Bill of Rights. The constitution of New Zealand 1852 and 1688 Bill of Rights. Don't worry about all of those. We have to support the Cabinet Manual. If they changed the rules in 1986, this is all part of it, isn't it? No. The thing is, you know, I mean, I know it's really, really hard to understand. And most lawyers, well, all lawyers are supposed to learn the basics of our constitution when they go to law school. But the way it's taught is very, very confusing, extremely confusing. And that's on purpose, I would say, because there must always be questions about the Crown. Later on tonight, I'm going to go and be on the Counterspin media to show that I think the main part of it is the allodial. Well, I'm going to go and talk about the allodial anyway, and why. Hi, Dora. Why all land in New Zealand is allodial, and how we can help. That's the case. I thought I'd just pop my face in for 30 seconds and do it real quick. Who's this beside you, Dora? Who's that? Hi, how are you? I'm good. Good to be here joining everyone. Yeah, well, Dora gave them a bit of a talking to, didn't she? Yeah. You must get the prize for the amount of words, Dora. Well, I timed it. I worked on it and worked on it and made sure I had, like, five minutes. No, you're right. They cut us down. But just to sort of touch what Liz said, you're quite right. So in law school, they teach us New Zealand has no constitution. We have what they call constitutional arrangements. And the legislation, or that there is an acknowledgement that they will act in a constitutional way. And the only other constitution that you could probably say if we had one would be Whakaputanga. But apart from that, no, we have no constitution. The Act is a legislation. It's not a constitution. Liz was quite right. But, yeah, no, they cut Liz off. She actually had three more minutes to speak. They told her she had one, but it's not true. So, but the speaker after us, they just cut her off, didn't they? Oh, yeah, the speaker after us, I think it's not the one where they cut it. That's the one that's doing the rounds at the moment. And they've got a big sign saying women can speak. Yeah. They were saying, and that one you can see on YouTube, not on YouTube, on Facebook. That's going around at the moment. That's a very colourful one. Yeah, I had felt that I needed to talk to Kinsley because Professor Kinsley and his disciples at the Kinsley Institute, even though I didn't mention all of the information, they set about going to all the schools and putting themselves on school committees. And then they set about pushing for sex education as part of the curriculum. And they then pushed for sex education. And the whole plan was that they would start with high school and eventually work themselves down as part of the plan into early child care centres. So the UN and WHO's international sexualised education programme that they've sent throughout the world is based on the Kinsley Institute, is based on Professor Kinsley. And that was from, as I said, the idea that he believed in his research, which was hands-on research. He started to sexually stimulate newborns within an hour, children, to see if they would have orgasms to prove that we are sexual beings and we should be educating infants as soon as they're born to be sexually inclined. And that before they start school, they should already know their sexual partner. And should be engaged in anal or digital or vaginal sex. And he also, part of his research was with animals. And that was him. He did that with infants, children, animals. And his reports show that he was also incestual. So, you know, and they found that all the research was him. It wasn't all these pseudonyms that he came up with. There was no other names. It was him. And, you know, this is who, when we had the, in the 1960s, when sex education came up, they based it on the Kinsley Institute. And all the other people who have done sex education and written reports have all relied on Kinsley's reports. That's why I pushed in my speech to discuss Professor Kinsley. Because when you get down to the nuts and bolts of all the research that the UN and the WHO and the Ministry of Education rely on, they all point back to Kinsley. Kinsley, who used, when he went to the prison to interview the 17,000 people, they were in prison for sex offending. They weren't in prison for robbing or anything like that. And I never mentioned that in there. I just didn't have time. But they were in prison for rape of male or female or animal. They were in prison for rape of an infant or a child or for having sexual relations with an infant, child, toddler. So he ranged from all those ages. And that's who he went in. And that's what makes his research invalid. Because we're talking about sex offenders being interviewed and expressing their sexual perversions and their desires for their own selfish gratification for the harm or detriment of another person or an infant or a child and even an animal. He can't say, no, I don't want this. And so that's the part that they're missing out on. In all the research, they're not talking about this. This research was based on someone who was acting criminally. In all his research, he never reported his crimes. And these crimes were paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was done at the Institute. So we're talking about children who were brought into or infants or toddlers who were brought into the Institute so he could conduct research. Experiments, in other words. And, you know, I think if people realize this is what the Ministry of Education is relying on. They're relying on this person and other sex offenders who have been criminally charged, their views of what sex education should be. Back in the 1970s, I came to Auckland in 1969. By 1970, I remember being in a flat. I wasn't, I was a nurse at that stage, I think. I went to nursing about 71, anyway. There was a lot of students, university students, you know, who were friends, etc. And I recall, Kinsey, that book, the books, you know, whatever they're called, were the big thing. Everybody was reading them. The students were discussing them and asking questions about stuff that, you know, made my eyes wide open. So, yeah, it was the big thing. And, of course, those students of those days are now, you know, in the top positions in the universities or in the public service or in the prison system or in the whatever, you know. And they've got a warped view in their education right back then. And remember, too, that the other person that you talked about in the last time we talked on the subject was, what's his name? He's a New Zealander. And then he went to Harvard and made a name for himself there, where he experimented on twin boys who one ended up… Money, wasn't it? The guy Money? Yeah, one overdosed and one killed himself, I think. One died of cancer. It was a terrible end for both of those boys. One had his penis damaged and this creep found out about it and said, oh, I know what to do. We'll bring him up as a girl. Money, that's him. Money. He comes from Morrinsville. He was born in Morrinsville, same place as Jacinda. Morrinsville monsters like all of them. Sorry, Morrinsville, but you've got a, you know, you've got a double whammy of creeps coming out of that place. Funny how people are born in certain places. Hi Liz, it's Debbie. Hi. It's interesting. Hi Dora. It was interesting to hear about Kingsley. I was listening to it, though, thinking about the Ministry of Justice, another government department, who in the family court uses Gardner's theory on parental alienation to give child molesters custody. And that was the purpose of… Gardner was a child molester, but it's openly discussed that he was asked to come up with an argument for child molesters getting contact with their children. And he used the parental alienation argument, which is still the biggest argument in the family court used today, that someone's actually trying to take away a child from a parent when actually typically what they're trying to do is keep them safe from a child molester. So it's not just the education department that's using paedophiles and… So is Gardner a New Zealander as well, Debbie? No, Gardner… I'm not too sure when that parental alienation argument came out, but it's, you know, every lawyer will jump on it because it's the strongest argument in the family court. Gardner was an American psychologist, and I think he ended up stabbing himself to death. So some real questionable mental health issues going on there. But it's widely known that he actually supported paedophiles, and this was his legal argument to support paedophiles getting custody of their children. So it's always been talked about as being junk science. And now I think Europe's completely trashed it, but New Zealand's still going ahead with it. So it's a sort of wonder that Kingsley's been… Yeah, I quite like that phrase, junk science. I think it's a good one. Yeah. Like junk law, junk science. Junk politicians. One big junk pile. Yeah, junk pile. So my question, though, Liz, was, so this piece of legislation, where to from here if it gets passed? And where is… it's on the select committee at the moment, so I'm not too sure from where to go, how far away it is from… Well, we've got a plan. I don't know about the rest of the country, but the union's got a plan. I wasn't able to really talk about it very sensibly in the select committee because it was just too rushed. But what I was talking about was that section… because, you know, there's plenty of sections and plenty of acts that can support you as weapons. But sometimes they've never been tested in the courts. But section 54, which basically is the section that prevents the executive arm of government, the Crown, from interfering in employment contracts, comes into play. Now, the, what do you call her, Rankin, she was nothing to do with sex offences or anything like that. She didn't get her, she didn't get a contract renewed. I think she was the, I think she was the CEO, she was something big in the Ministry of Social Development or something. She worked, I remember, I seem to remember that Winds was her area and she did quite a good job with them. And anyway, politically, it wasn't popular, probably because she did a… Tracy's just given us some information here about Gardiner. She, the CEO or the minister, I think it must have been the minister of State Services Commission, wouldn't renew her contract. She was on a fixed-term contract, didn't renew it. And so there was an argument whether the Employment Court, well, at first they took it to the authorities as a statement of problem. Then it got, I've talked about it on another Zoom, I think, then it got upgraded to the Employment Court for their deliberation on it. They said, yep, we've got jurisdiction. She's employed by the, obviously employed by them, because they were the ones who could renew or not her contract. But anyway, I think she got paid out in the end. I don't think it even went to the court. But we've got the law that says, yes, the CEO can be sued for interfering in the contracts of employees. Now, Liz, what's her name, Balich, thought she was being smart by saying, oh, but the boards aren't employees. Well, no, they're employers. So we've got a double whammy, right? But when you say what are we going to do, the union would take a case on behalf of the members who were teachers against the CEO for allowing political interference by being the, if you like, the regulator of the Education Act or whatever it's called for education. Is that the Act, Liz? That's what I was going to ask. Is it Section 54 of the? It's Section 54 of this Public Services Act 2020. OK, cool. OK, so duty to act independently. So basically, they've got a butt out of political interference in the employment area, right? They can set policies. They can even set the curriculum. But it's the teachers who have to teach the curriculum or the boards, you know, who are then the employers of those teachers. And then you've got the next level down where, and I didn't have time, as I say, to talk about Section 83, but Section 83 would allow either an individual teacher to say, no, this is a breach of the health and safety of the children. We've got a case that went before the Teachers' Council, their disciplinary, what's it called, PPC, Professional Conduct Committee, that says when there was a sexual assault by a teacher and then it was sort of let go by the sexual assault by a teacher on a nine year old. This is the Gloria Vale case. I've talked about that as well before. So we've got decisions in the case of teacher and principal and what's supposed to go on for the safety, health and safety of children in the workplace. That was a case, that case was heard by, I think they put a charge, they must have put a charge on the man called Jess Pilgrim, who was the principal. He lost his teacher's registration. So we've got the law that says our children in school are entitled to have a healthy and safe schooling environment. We're saying is, you know, I mean, it's pretty obvious that it is grooming. It's against the law and all the other situations. And they thought that if they put it into an educational policy that they could clean it up and make it look sweet and nice. But it's just grooming in another guise. And I believe that we could go after the CEO as kind of controlling third party, if you like. And we can go after the teachers themselves, can go after the boards. They can also do Section 83, which means that you can say this is an unsafe practice to teach this and we're not going to teach it. And there's nothing they can do about it. So there we go. So that's what we're going to do. So, you know, what can everybody do? Join the union. Support us. Be in there. We'll encourage all of you. I think a lot of people thought they couldn't join the union because they're not workers. Of course they can. Will there be a penalty to them if you're successful in court? Beg your pardon? Will there be a penalty to whoever you're taking on? Yeah, yeah. Well, we would certainly ask for penalties, exemplary damages against the CEO of Education New Zealand and against any boards. In the end, you know, all of those damages are paid out of the public purse. But, you know, that's that's an expenditure, I think, that we as well with it. Jeff has got a question. Well, I just wanted to make a few comments, if I may. Tonight's title supposedly was about the court. And I have been doing a lot of research recently about the law and courts and what have you. And one, I was looking for case law in New Zealand on misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, exemplary damages and all kinds of good stuff. And I couldn't find any. But I have found. It's in the Crimes Act, I think, actually. No, I've been looking for cases, not the law. And that's what I can't find. But I have found a whole bucket load of them in Australia and a lot of them to the cops. And vicarious liability also is kicking in a lot. In Australian cases, and I have done this sort of document thing, which might be a bit too big to put in the chat. But it's really me and what you're talking about now with exemplary damages and punitive damages. All this is what I have been discovering over the last few days about what's going on in Australia. I'm sure that we can use it over here. Also, going back to the law and the courts, the cops do not like the law. They do not like people quoting the law to them. And I am finding this out now as a result of some of the stuff I got from my request. One of them, Cripps, a nasty piece of work. He had to go in one of his confidential emails that Waterhouse uses the law to get around things. And another one, they redacted all these emails that I was supposed to get. And this woman cop wrote to another one saying, Waterhouse is bound to want to know what the acts and statutes are that we're quoting to redact these emails. Can you tell us what they are? I think that you're right. Wow. I thought it reminded me of the old saying, shoot first, ask questions later. In that case, it's the redact first and find out what acts and statutes we can use to justify it later. So I put her on notice again today. And there's so much stuff out there, Liz, that I have time to do and look into. It's a treasure chest, isn't it, Jeff? It's a gold mine. But to enjoy that treasure, you have to get into the courts. Yeah. And they invite you in, which is good. Another amazing thing I found as well is that there is a sort of professional McKenzie friend organization in New Zealand. And our friend Brad Flutey is involved in that. So I only found out about that yesterday as well. Yeah. I think I think a guy called Vinay D'Abeta. Vinay. Yeah. So I'm not going to say any more. OK. Be aware. But anyway, I'm encouraged by a lot of experience with a lot of people over these last in the courts and, you know, out of the courts and alternative ways to go. Yes, of course, making use of the McKenzie friend system is fantastic. It really does help people. But, yeah, just be aware. OK. Right. We'll try and post this thing in the chat because it does provide it talks about. Actually, I'll tell you something. I'll tell you why I know Vinay. Vinay was the Crafers lawyer for a while. That's how I know. Yeah. I'm going to give this a go and see how we do. It might not all take. So what I might do if I may perhaps put it on the Facebook page. It's it shouldn't get removed. So there we go. So. I think it's all there, actually. It's a bit of a long read, but there's amazing stuff going on in Australia. And this vicarious liability thing as well. The state courts in Australia do not like the police organization trying to offload the liability for malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and stuff like that. They don't like the cops offloading it. Back onto the individual cop and the courts are saying in Australia that the cops themselves, the organization, they have vicarious liability. I also found another interesting case where a doctor was able to get exemplary damages paid on his insurance. I thought that was interesting. So there we are. Life's interesting. Oh, yeah. So, yeah, I'd say I'd say that does. Does does. What would you call it? Those insurance policies are big pockets going after. Yeah. OK. So. Thanks for your time, folks. I'm going to go to bed. Yeah. Yes. Because it's what? About four o'clock. Half past four in the morning. Half past four in the morning. Sleep well. How you're worth it. You're worth the sacrifice. You're in Dixieland, aren't you? Where are you? Yeah. Georgia. Georgia. Oh, that's lovely. I'm going to look at the post I put on the Facebook page about fuel price comparisons. It's quite interesting. OK. Thank you. Thank you. That's great. But on the Aussies, they're keeping up. They're way ahead according to what I've seen. Oh, yeah. I think Lynette came back. I saw Lynette pop back in. I don't know why. OK. Oh, Lynette, I think that some people are going over to some people. Thanks, Jeff. Some people are going over to Counterspin because they've already started there. Oh, they're not started yet. Oh, not yet. OK. Oh, so. So now you come running back, Lynette. Yeah. Lynette. Lynette should pay. Should not have let her in, eh? We should have just shut her out. We should have. We should have said, anybody goes out, you can't come back in without a note. Yeah, that's it. That's it. We'll have to think about it. Speaking of paying again, right? I'm going to start putting you guys, not you guys, but, you know, the general public on notice. probably going to have a system that the invitations for the meeting, the live meetings, are going to be sent out to union members only. Right. Now, we'll probably continue, people will be able to continue to look at the thing when it's uploaded to, when it's uploaded to Rumble. The Counterspin live link, we don't have that, do we? I was just going to go and see if I could grab it from. Oh, it looks like Alicia's put. She put it up there. Yeah, I think once you go on to Counterspinmedia.com and then you, oh, there we go. Yeah, put something up. You'll find it. Yeah, and then it'll tell you how to get on to the live. But yeah, we, because we want people to support the union, a lot of people, I found out that a lot of people are getting, are paying, I think, a lot of money for advice about, well, especially advice about employment law. Maybe it's advice about other stuff as well. But all common law, quite a lot of money. Individually, a lot of money, but a lot, in the end, it turns out to be quite a lot. And I think, quite frankly, that the union is, union membership is a far better deal for people. And so we will probably restrict at least the places where you can come on, ask questions, have a talk, get some individual feedback, et cetera, to union membership. I'm, you know, I've always said, I've told you, it's waiting on you, Liz, because you're very important. Oh, what? I don't think they're waiting on me. I don't think, I got an email, a message from Kelvin saying go on at quarter past, quarter past nine. 21, what's 2100? That's, yeah, yeah. I got it right. Quarter past nine. Yes, they are. Come on. Yes, they are. Come on. Okay. I'd better go. I'll see you guys later. Yeah. Thank you, everyone. We'll go jump on there as well. Thanks, everyone, for coming along. Bye. See you Wednesday. Yeah. Thanks. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.