The speaker discusses a court case in Taupo where they argue against vaccine coercion and the legality of COVID restrictions. The judge questioned their arguments and reserved the decision. They also mention the importance of the Health Act and potential safety concerns with the vaccine. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of attention to safety evidence and criticizes those who label vaccine objectors negatively. The judge's decision is expected to set a precedent for bringing Bill of Rights issues to the district court.
Oh, so crappy, eh? Evening, everyone. I'll do the Facebook Live thingy as well while I think about it. There we go. Good evening, everybody. Thanks so much for coming along. It's been a massive week. Yeah. Thanks, Emma. Yeah, it has been a massive week, but we've all got each other. Yeah. Yeah. And what a united front, I would have to say. Yep. Incredible how people have banded together. And I mean, I absolutely love Karleen, and... She's done a great job and continues to do a great job.
Yeah, and just the things she says and the way she... The little phrases she has and just... Yeah, so great. Little prayers she does. Yeah, very, very cool. Yep. Yeah. You know, I think people might be learning to pray. Well, you know, we've always got to... Like tonight, the theme of tonight is exposing the worm. But the worm, when it's exposed, it's pretty vulnerable. Yeah? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The corruption is just a worm compared to us, and we've got lots of ways of destroying it.
So, yeah, that's... I was going to talk to Ann about some, you know, get people thinking about looking for, you know, divine intervention in this, because it's happening all of the time. All of the time. Yeah. The other thing we're going to talk about tonight is some real good stuff from Erica, and she's going to tell us about what happened in the court case down in Taupo. The decision has been reserved, but we've already started to draw from it a whole lot of lessons, a whole lot of pointers that say we got it right.
They're going to struggle to bring that case down. Really struggle. And, of course, this is the district court, and so there's the High Court, Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. If we have to fight them, we can fight them. Wow. That's so awesome. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they can say in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, you know, we turn you down. You know, they can always say that. High Court can't, because that's an appeal from the, that's an appeal.
Actually, could you go to the Supreme Court? Could you go to the Appeal Court? Anyway, it's one of those things for the future. But, you know, we're learning lessons all along the way about how to extinguish this grub, this worm, this canker, whatever you want to call it, in the middle of our apple. Yeah. Okay. So how are we getting on? I'm just thinking. Erica, you're there. Let's start with Erica's stuff, because I've kind of given you an introduction to that.
And we're going to talk about symbolism soon, all those people who like codes and symbolism and everything. We're going to have a good chat about that tonight. Awesome. Okay. Well, let Erica tell us about the case in Taupo, what it meant and how it went and what lessons we've learned. Oh, thanks, Liz. So yesterday was the hearing for the strikeout. The sports club, Tennis New Zealand, Sport New Zealand, won it all, struck out. And the hearing was the whole day, minus a few strikes in the middle from the PSA.
So the other side wanted to strike it out because they thought that the sports club didn't come under the Health and Safety at Work Act. And I think the judge quashed that one because he goes, well, there's monthly records of a cleaner being paid. You know, when you pay someone, that means you're an employer. He didn't say employs a person, but that's what the Health and Safety at Work Act says. So, yeah, I think he kind of quashed that because he was almost softening the council for the other side saying, oh, so if I had a cleaner come once a month, you know, that means that they're working for you.
I don't know what kind of. And then the other items that they were trying to strike out were, they said that BORA, Bill of Rights, Bill of Rights is not for the district court. It's for the Human Rights Tribunal. And I had actually emailed the Human Rights Commission in December last year when this all started. I don't know if anyone tried to phone them. When I tried to phone them in December, I got some speak and spell voice that went, hello, you've reached us, please leave a message, goodbye.
Yeah, yeah. So I said, yes, I did make a complaint, but, you know, I haven't filed, I haven't done anything, you know, and they never got back to me either. And then the other side mentioned a case, Wilson versus the Attorney General, which was a case that Liz has since located in Westlaw about a woman in Henderson who was falsely arrested and she took them to the, she took the case to the district court and BORA was one of the items, you know, about being wrongly arrested.
So it has been in the district court before. It has been in the district court before, BORA, as opposed to, say, the Human Rights Tribunal or the High Court or, you know, these other courts. So that, and the judge also mentioned Section 3 of BORA and Section 6 before I did, which I thought was quite a good sign. Then he started talking about coercion, Section 92. So there was a bit of confusion as to how I was pleading coercion.
I submitted that the vaccine only had provisional approval and I had the Gazette item from Medsafe from February 2021 with the 58 conditions and how only three were met, had, you know, other dates. And I said, you know, this is a provisionally approved medicine. It hasn't had full approval. And three people have already died. I'd hate to be number four. And I'll tell you what, the court registrar, your eyes were wide open. Because I think some people haven't actually heard it.
A lot like that. Yeah. Well, good on you. So the, so the argument and, you know, it really doesn't become clear until you try to argue it to someone, but I tried to argue it, which was that the other bodies, they all encouraged it. They all sent emails in November, December. They all said, we encourage you to get vaccinated. You know, vaccination is going to keep us open and stop cancellations and stop events happening. We encourage it.
We encourage it. So my argument was, well, you encourage something that only has provisional approval and that's coercion. And you weren't neutral. You know, you offered operating and COVID vaccine pass or non-COVID vaccine pass. So those were the options, right? You either stick up a sign and say, we're checking passports, or you stick up a sign and go, we're not checking passports. And they, they gave those two options, but they encouraged getting vaccinated, which means they weren't neutral.
Their position was that you had to, that they wanted people to get vaccinated. So I guess it's really going to depend on whether the judge thinks that my safety concerns are actually valid because a lot of people are still, you know, no, it's fine. It's fine. Nothing wrong with that. I also said, you know, there's been 2 million people, almost 2 million cases now on this country. So, you know, where was the protection? I think it was 1.9 million last time I checked on the Ministry of Health website.
You know, when it reaches 2 million, it's just a joke. It's like, well, half the people who had the so-called prevention treatment have obviously had it. If there's idiots out there taking tests when they've had it for a second time or a third time, because you hear about those COVIDaholics quite a lot, right? Oh, I've had it twice. So it's really going to depend whether the judge believes that there's a valid safety concern. He wouldn't let me do any more submissions.
I think I was on statement of claim number five. He was like, no, you're not doing any more submissions. You know, he may just say, off you go to the Human Rights Commission. And hopefully he won't award costs. That's probably the biggest fear. But I did put in my submissions. You know, you can't be frightening people to seek justice over costs. That's not how justice is supposed to work. So the part about coercion that was confusing, I think, for the judge was the fact that I'm not a worker.
So I don't work at the tennis club. And he was asking what kind of role I have. So he was very interested in understanding that side of it. And I think that everyone who's had their workplace encouraged vaccination is definitely under the coercion now because they're a worker. Right. Whereas me, I'm just showing up, you know, like the whole definition for a sports club. It's still very, very blurry. You know, they do have some health and safety obligations.
And in duties, but they don't really, you know, if you ask. I mean, I'm trying to think what kind of tennis clubs. Robinson, what did you think of the judge? I thought the judge was quite good in the sense that he zoomed in straight away on the coercion and knew which paragraph it was in my claim. Whereas the judge I had in July was like a grumpy old man who didn't even want to be there. So that was Judge Hollister Jones.
I think he's only been a judge for about five years and I couldn't find any other decisions on him. So he said the decision is reserved. So he's got to write it all up. The decision that Liz waited on from a September hearing didn't come out till early November. So maybe he'll take ages. I think he I think he probably should, because he's going to set a precedent for this, whether you can bring a Bill of Rights issue to the district court and whether or not coercion is something real, whether the vaccine does have safety concerns.
And Liz mentioned a few weeks ago about the case that has coercion, which was a cleaner in the school who was worried about asbestos. You know, when asbestos was around in the 60s, everyone thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. And I'm hoping that I'll get to argue that, you know. Took him a long time to figure out that asbestos was actually pretty bad. And someone someone has to point it out. The lawyers for the other side said that the Human Rights Commission was pretty busy.
So they were aware of that, which I thought was quite insightful. And the body language of this man at one stage, he was kind of looking down at his papers with his head in his hands like this. So I'll take that as a positive. But, yeah, who knows? You know, I mean, if the judge thinks that I'm up on my soapbox about vaccine safety. That's why I shared the provisional consent notice in the Medsafe Gazette. So that it wasn't, you know, wasn't, I don't know, a Facebook page or a New Zealand hero article or some obscure newspaper overseas.
It's really it's it's hard to make people listen to the safety evidence. And it's hard to make them realise because you're basically breaking down the whole wall of belief of what they've been told. And people have been primed on vaccine, anti-vaccine behaviours, you know, for the last 10, 20 years. You know, we've had we've had the media going on about measles and anti-vax parents. You know, it's been a lot of people have already been primed for this kind of response to challenging the medical and pharmaceutical decisions and the marketing.
And that's what I call it now. It's really just marketing. After Liz pointed out what was in the Medicines Act, when you import a medicine, you don't even have to have anything safety. And I was talking to my neighbour about this. You know, if you want to import, say, a building material, if you want to make. There's a house I know of where they made their roof out of solar panels. So the roofing material is the solar panel.
And they tried to import this and it took them like a year or something to be allowed to import a material. And then Medsafe just get everything, you know, all the all the boxes checked. Well, enough boxes to let it in. So I think that aspect of the safety has been completely overlooked. And like what Chris Lint was always saying, you know, it's been in plain sight, hidden in plain sight. It's all been there. It just hasn't been focused on.
And that article today about Sue Gray and the Herald saying there's been a complaint to the Law Society. I mean, whoever has made that complaint. Who knows? And then the PM's mentioned it as well. That was what was in the article. It's, you know, that's what I call bigotry. That's if you object to taking the medicine, you are now grouped in this, in this. You are now put in this group that is just the scourge of the earth.
And that's what, you know, it's like if I said, oh, I don't like the fact that my Portuguese landlord is a real pain in the butt. So all Portuguese people are really annoying and I can't stand them. You know, that's, that's been a bigot. So the fact that you object to taking the medicine doesn't mean that you're in this negative group. So, yeah. Does anyone have any other questions about how it went? I mean, I could be waiting till after Christmas for a decision.
I know the judge didn't really say much on my submissions other than whether I was a person, a role or a function from the Health and Safety at Work Act. That's what the coercion side of it is. So I think we've really got to develop that. And Robin, I didn't call you back today, but we really need to add that coercion into your claim. And I've been going through some documents and so many companies have said, oh, but we encourage vaccination.
We encourage vaccination. And it's like that is not a neutral position when you encourage something. So, yeah. And thank you so much to Karen for coming along with me. That's fantastic, Erica. Really good. Yeah. The courage that you show through all of this I think is so awesome. Yeah. Really. You get to contemplate it when you're driving three hours to Rotorua, that's for sure. Just to front up and do it. I think that's amazing. Yeah. Really is.
Oh, Robin, I can send you a link to the asbestos one. I think that's in our Union Drive, in the Google Drive. Oh, excuse me. I've still got a cough and they said at the entrance, oh, you can't come in. Do you have any flu symptoms? No. No? Do you know what? I actually think it's this humid weather and all the flowers that are out there. It's probably hay fever now as well. Yeah. Yeah. You're muted, Liz.
Oh, maybe she can't hear me either. You guys can hear me, eh? Yeah. Yeah. Liz is muted. Sorry. Sorry, I'm saying something and you're not hearing me. No, you can't access the Union Drive, but we can send you the case, Robin. No problem. Oh, the other thing I wanted to add was that the other side mentioned that the parts of the COVID protection framework weren't enacted. Oh, this is interesting. This is very interesting. This is quite complex and we've really got to study what the hang they're talking about with this.
Tell us about this, Erica. So, one of my arguments was that the COVID protection framework in the end of December said that sports facilities must close indoor and the toilets have to stay open, however, and so do, and if the access to the toilets is from another part of the building, that still has to stay open in order to access the toilets. So, that's in my statement of claim and the other side said that there was a select committee that said that this part of the legislation wasn't actually activated.
Is that the term that he used? I know Karen took really good notes. I've thought about this, but go on. Yeah, tell us about it. So, I emailed him and asked him to share it and he shared it with me this morning. So, it says examinations of COVID-19 orders presented between 30th of December and 3rd of December. That's interesting because the toilets access was put on the 26th of December. Final report of Regulations Review Committee, March 2022.
Chris Pink, oh, that's my friend from church. So, he was the select committee. So, it looks like it's a select committee and I haven't read all of it. It's nine pages, but the fact is it's a select committee. It's not public. Yes, but here's something else and this was what occurred to me during the first lockdown because on Waiheke, there was plenty of places, you know, parks empty, but they have toilets in them, right? And they locked them all up.
And I thought, this is wrong. So, I went looking. It's in the Health Act. They're required to keep public toilets always open under the Health Act. So, here we go. Which section? I don't know. Can't remember now, but we'll find it. We'll find it. It's in the Health Act there, shall we? Yep. It's the same with they can't cut off your water supply. Yeah. That's in the Health Act as well. So, we've got that Act sitting there and as I keep saying, you can see by section 34 of the 2020 Act that you've got them now fused together.
So, everything that's in the Health Act applies to the 2020 Act because it's to do with their liability. They're protected by section 129 of the Health Act, but that's only if they obey. If they do anything in the Health Act that is not correct, then we come slamming down on them with the Health Act. Yeah, there was no questions. So, the other side got questioned about human rights and the judge quashed that in a nice, soft manner.
You know, the Health and Safety at Work Act. The only questions I got were about, oh, okay, so what did you expect to be able to use the toilets, a rat test outside the toilets? And I said, well, there was only one toilet and there's only 25 people queuing up for it. You know, they've got to open windows. And how has being me trotting off to the public toilets up the road, how is that reducing the risk? I read out the Judge Corkill decision from July about reducing the risk of transmission and my submissions mentioned transmission statements from the Ministry of Health, which there are none and they redacted them.
That was in September of last year. I didn't address those in the court. It was kind of like, I didn't want to come off as too much of a weirdo, weirdo anti-government. You didn't want to make out that you spent your whole time in law books when you've got much better things to be doing. So that was good. That's good that, you know, because they're expecting you to be the general member of the public. This is what the judge is wanting to see.
Not a whole lot of legal arguments, but you've got to have the legal arguments, right? You've got to know and, you know, say, well, isn't there something? And I think there might be something. And the judges, and you see what you were telling me too, Erica, was that it was the other side who said, you know, the court's got no jurisdiction and the judge said to them, well, what's your case, right? And wasn't it the law clerk who found the case? Is that what happened? I think it was the lawyer with his head in his hands.
He found the Wilson v. Attorney General. Well, why did he think that that was helpful to their side? I think the judge had a really good rapport with everyone. But, I mean, who asked the first question about, you know, who put up the challenge that the court had no jurisdiction? I think all three of them did. Yeah. Definitely the Taupo Tennis Club. Then they wouldn't have come forward with that case. It must have been that, I think Karen said when we talked about it this morning, that the clerk, the judge said to the clerk of the court, well, you know, is there a case? And the clerk found it.
Oh, was it the clerk? I honestly don't remember. Karen took really good notes. Yeah, no, that's what she was saying. No, the guy for Tennis New Zealand or Sport New Zealand would have never brought that up because that punches their whole rubbish about, you know, the district court. You have to go straight to the high court. And this is a great thing, really, guys, because remember, the district court is so much more accessible. The high court is very, you know, getting injunctions and all very formal.
The district court, although it has its rules, it's in terms of the difference between a district court and a high court is a big thing because the district court is where everything starts off and where you kind of get a chance to have the whole story told because they're like the authority. You know, there's kind of like a whole area where it's the more refined things that got to the high court from there. But if you start off in the high court, you know, you often don't get a chance to have all of that discussion and learn about the facts of the case, etc.
So more the substantive that gets argued in the district court and then it goes to the high court and further on, on points of law or like when you make an appeal, you've got to appeal. You can't just make an appeal because you didn't like the decision. You've got to be able to point to the points of law or the fact that the judge made a mistake of fact or law or there's what's called a mixture of those two elements.
So you could say, you know, like, for example, if we were appealing this and they said no, you know, select, what do they call the review committee? You know, the judge said, oh, well, that was good enough. You know, the review committee said and so, you know, it didn't really impinge or something like that. Let's say the judge put in something like that and didn't give you that. Then what you could do is say he made a mistake in fact and law because in actual fact, the law that we're referring to is over in the Health Act and they were, you know, he was mistaken in fact that he didn't know that or something like that.
You know, I mean, it's. So looking at the select committee report, it's basically just saying it's recommending back that there's no infringements for not following these. I'm not sure what they mean by it wasn't enacted. You know, they were still there, but they were saying, OK, don't be issuing fines, which is what WorkSafe were trying to do all this time. Right. So it was guidance to WorkSafe more than anything. Well, it was guidance back to the minister.
So it looks to me like they were supposed to have this select committee every three months to review the orders. And they wrote in this particular one that was shared with me this morning said that it just talks about how they're recommending not to have offences or, you know, fines for not making all these things. It doesn't really say anyway. I haven't spent time reading that. It's nine pages. But at this point, it's all in the judge.
And I'm sure that, you know, this will in the mainstream news has made people aware of the vaccinated blood and that there's concerns. And I think that's what I was saying to Liz the other day. It's like a baby may save this whole thing because it's become such a such a big piece in mainstream media. Yeah. Yeah. It's the first time they've really had to engage with VAX injury and the facts of the VAX and the facts that people are so concerned about it that they're willing to, you know, just not cave into the doctors on us.
Yeah. And I mean, what a brave stand. Absolutely brave stand. And yeah, as you say, it could be the baby and the family that bring this all to a head. Yeah. And the lengths to which the state will go to harangue people into it. Yeah. It's an object lesson, isn't it? Absolutely object lesson. Yeah. It sounds just absolutely totalitarian. Yes. When I lived in former East Germany, a friend told me that his mother and all mothers, their children, had six weeks to go back to work in the workforce.
There was free childcare from the state. All mothers were pretty much working. And now this is just, you know, another level of interference. The other part that the Defence Council for Sport New Zealand was that they were just following government's advice. That's what she said. We were just following what the government told us to do, given they're a government body. And we were rushed to try and make our guidelines. And she had a nice printout of their guidelines with all these, you know, icons and graphics.
And we encouraged vaccination. They all admitted that they encouraged vaccination in the hearing. Oh, yes. They didn't think that there was anything wrong with actually saying that. But I think then, and I see Alicia's put up, it looks like onenews.co.nz, baby blood case video shows emotionally charged seen in hospital room. So they're talking about it. The TV One News are actually talking about what happened now. OK. Now, this thing, too, where you're just talking about they said, oh, we were just doing what the government said.
Now, can the people know that the government didn't have any reports? Because this is what came out in the case on Wednesday, Tuesday. The government, when you look at the, and this is what I talked about on the Wednesday When you look at what's called the provisional consent, they know the only things are the names and addresses and stuff like that. They don't have to. If you go back from Section 23, back up to Section 21, and you look at the procedure, when it's under Section 23, they don't even have to look for any tests as to safety and efficacy.
So it's just basically a shoe in. Now, the other thing is, is that our government and all governments, when the state lets a new medicine in, and you referred to this at the beginning, Erica, when they let a new medicine in, under Section 20, Section 20, subsection 3, there's no warranty of safety and efficacy. The state does not do that. So the state going around saying it's safe and effective completely brings them, makes a mockery of Section 20, subsection 3.
Right? So it's not, they don't know, because they don't know if it was, because under the provisional consent, you don't look at the safety and efficacy. You don't have to. And that's why we know they didn't have any efficacy, because we know from POSA they didn't do any efficacy tests, you know, as to whether it stopped transmission. That is the whole point of the Act. Stop transmission. Stop the risk of transmission. The vax never was tested for transmission, and probably not for safety either.
Because they didn't have to put in, yeah, that's the date it was presented. They didn't have to put in, they didn't have to get any, put in any materials about, because you only go down as far as the name of the dress and where it was, you know, what the ingredients, main raw materials are, like water and salt and da-da-da-da. You only have to do that and put the right, you know, tell people how to, how to inject it or, and you know, how often and all of that stuff.
That's all. It's all technical details. Nothing about safety and efficacy. And so for the government to then go blah, blah, blah, safe and effective, and all of these fools to carry on after them, I mean, they just now look like total morons. And we are going to make hay out of it. Absolutely. We're going to make hay out of it. Yeah, that was the other item that we talked about this morning, which was misrepresentation. Oh, yes.
Section 93. Section 93 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, correct? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good. I'll just share the case that we've talked about, the coercion. It's the Employment Relations Authority. It's this one. Oh, that's the, yeah. Blair versus Board of Trustees. Yeah, the Board of Trustees case. Now, it was found that there was no coercion. In fact, in that case, there was no coercion, but it had been put forward as a claim. Okay? So you put your claim in, and sometimes you win them, and sometimes you don't.
So what the courts very helpfully do, especially if something is new, is that they examine the section that it's put in under, which was, was it put in under Section 97? I can't remember. Anyway, it was a claim of coercion. And she was working. She was a worker. She was a cleaner at the school, which meant it was a PG, right? A Lee. That's right. Lee in the Board of Trustees of Tamatea High School. Right. She was an employee, so it was a PG.
And then she, so they said, oh, no, it's not, but this is how, this is the section that she's referring to, and this is how it works. So then we had one case, and it's always one case, it seems, that, you know, but you only need one case. You only need one case, and you, you know, you use it properly, and that's all that's required. You don't need millions of cases. The other thing, of course, was the great find with Wilson, because that, you know, we're getting this all of the time, right? Erica, we're getting from the employers, no, no, you can't use, you can't, you know, you can't argue Bill of Rights stuff.
You can't, dah, dah, dah, dah. You can argue Bill of Rights stuff whether the employer is a, whether the employer is a state employer or an agent or something, or they are not. Okay? It's going to be argued in every case. We're going to pull it out the hat in every case. Now, going back to then talking about the Human Rights Commission, what you're going to have to develop in the Human Rights Commission if you go there, although, you know, I think we should just keep peeling it all the way up, is the section 211H7.
Okay? And did you have that in as 211H7? Did you have that in your argument or not, that one? Yes, I did, and there were no questions about it. There were really only questions for things that weren't clear. Okay. Very good. Very good. Robin says, did they argue the Air New Zealand? I'm stuck in... The Raihana case? Sorry. Did they argue the Air NZ Australia guy case? No, they didn't, and I pointed out that a case on an aluminium-plast plane in the sky has completely different rules to a sports club with outdoor setting.
But is this the Raihana case? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Robin's just asked in the chat. So the other side just basically, I don't know, did it. And that is for their submissions. That's my take on it. They haven't connected the dots between coercion and the real risk. It needs to, but I don't, quite frankly, I would say the risk is irrelevant. The coercion is what is relevant. Okay? If you are stopped from doing something or made to do something, that's unlawful.
Okay? So it doesn't, I mean, they could have put saline and everything. I would say the risk is actually irrelevant. Because you had a right... Okay, so I don't need to prove that this thing has maimed people and injured. No, no, you can't. I just need to say I have, yeah, I did. Because I sent them section, I sent all of them section 83 letters. Anyway, they were taking my advice and ignoring everything and just going, are you going to tell everyone they have to do the one thing? So, you know, it's just amazing.
Yeah. Admit it in the court. Yeah, we encouraged it. Yeah. Yeah, they don't see it because they've never had a coercion, they've never had a coercion challenge chucked at them before. They will go, they will have gone home last night and thought, and started to look at it and thought, it would be difficult. You know, they admit it. That's coercion. That's encouragement. Not allowed to do that. Yeah. So the judge said my decision is reserved. In layman's terms, that means it will come out in due course.
And then he kind of walked off. Not very, well, kind of neutral, but I was thinking, I'm going to have to write... You and Karen did a fantastic job. Fantastic job. Thank you so much, Karen. Yeah, it's going to be hell on earth with suits. Oh, yeah, I like that, Alicia. Hell on earth with suits. Ten so much. You know, the suits, the suits think they have it all, but the suits just think inside a box mostly.
That's why they're in suits. Men in suits. Yeah, or women in suits. That's been our problem. So, yeah, tonight I was going to talk a little bit about words. Words are symbols, if you like. Thanks, Erica. And now it's sort of gone from me what I was going to say. So people talk to me about, you know, questions. Think about, you know, if you've got an idea about a symbol. Mostly I was thinking about the apple.
I was thinking about Eve and the apple, the apple symbol on the Mac, all of that, you know. What it meant when she bit into the apple was that the knowledge of good means was revealed, right? So the good, of course, was the lovely apple, but the evil was the woman in the middle. Now the other word for the evil one is worm, the great worm. Worm is also a name for a dragon or a snake, yeah? And we know it was a serpent.
But what also the other thing about the story is that there's another tree in the garden that after they were chucked out, the angel with the great flaming sword was put east of Eden, I think, to guard the tree of life. Now the tree of life is the DNA. No, it wasn't the cherubim, my dear. He's a tougher one than cherubim. He's there with the great flaming sword. And he's guarding the tree of life because the tree of life is our DNA, right? It's our connection from earth to heaven, from heaven to earth.
So this is what is under attack, and this is what I said to Liz when I was texting back and forth to her with ideas on the day of the court hearing. And I sent the ideas I had about section 92.1.5, not 1, I-5. I don't think it got argued. I didn't hear it get argued, but who knows? It could in the future. But, yeah, this is a fight over the tree of life because we are in the elemental fight here between good and evil.
What the devil wants to do is destroy the tree of life because that's our connection to our creator. And that's, you know, we are his proudest, if you like. We don't need to be proud, I mean. But we are his favorite. I believe we are his favorite creation. And the devil, as one of the, you know, Lucifer, star of the morning, was chucked out because he was, you know, he wanted to take over heaven, basically, and apparently one-third of the angels went with him.
They, some of them apparently, you know, cast eyes on the women who were the sons of men or the, you know, women of men or whatever. And that's supposed to be the, you know, the basis of the Illuminati or the Methiline or whatever. Yeah, so who knows? But what I do believe is that the devil didn't. The devil's got no body. The devil's got no offspring. But he's, you know, and he probably wants some. But he wants to take over the earth to do that.
But, you know, because he's the opposite and he's a rebellious father of lies, whatever he touches is corrupt and the people he touches are corrupt. And this is why we see these people acting in a very, very strange way. And we just have to hope and pray that the people who have been touched this way will come to their senses. It will wear off or, you know, it could be. We pray. And, you know, I mean, this is the thing.
And Liz was there. It was a very touching interview that I was watching just before we came on. I was saying to Emma, I had a little bit of a few tears. She was saying, you know, there's the light around the baby that, you know, is being held up and, you know, nurtured. His spirit is with God, you know, and being watched over. And that he'll be okay. And I think that's the truth. That's the truth.
So we can only look forward to good things for baby Will, I believe. And take heart from that, people. Take heart. Because these things are not coincidental. You know, there is no such thing as coincidence. When it's something good, it comes from God. When it's something bad, it comes from the people. Right? Okay? We get tested a hell of a lot. But that's, you know, to build our faith. Build our faith. And what we do with that is amazing.
Okay? You know, people look at others and say, wow. But everyone has that potential. Everybody. All of you here have got that. So, yep, we got a whole lot of us. And, you know, we're Gideon's Army. And we're going to win. So Heidi says, I think this case with Will has made the government look so bad and damaged their image even more. I'm sure this has woken up more people. I think you're correct, Heidi. Absolutely. Absolutely.
And, you know, a little baby, we know the other little baby that came on earth over 2000 years ago and it changed, woke the whole world up. This could be another little baby who does that, in this case. Okay? So anybody got any questions? What's Lynette say? When we were growing up, we always had a saying, what's upon a time when the devil ate lime and the monkeys chewed tobacco? The devil flew past with a chisel up his ass.
So what's the laughing matter? Thank you, Lynette. That's so funny. That's so good. Yep. We should bet she made you read that out, Lynette. Yeah, go on. Lynette might be able to sing it for us. Come on, Lynette. No, I'm not going to be singing it for you. Once upon a time when the devil ate lime and the monkeys chewed tobacco. Oh, God, see, it took me a while to figure that one out because we always grew up with that saying.
Yeah. And this is like, God's sake, 60 years ago. There you go. Yeah. And we used to laugh our heads off. Didn't have a clue what we were saying. Yes, yes. It's like, you know, and this is what I meant by the symbols and the words. Yeah. They come down to us in all of these nursery rhymes and, you know, sayings and. I've got many of them. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But one of the greatest book of sayings is the book of Proverbs.
Okay. Yeah. Have a look at that and you can probably find an answer to every question of law that you want answered. Have a look. When we were growing up, Liz, we were brought up as devout bloody Catholics and, you know, Saturday was CCD, Sunday was mass, and my father used to rock up to midnight mass every year. Pistols with parrots. What's CCD? Oh, Catholic Community Doctrine. You know, CCD. Oh, right. On a Saturday. Yeah, Saturday.
Yeah. Wow. You were a hot shot Catholic. I never even knew it. Oh, yeah. Well, hello. We had to. We had to. I hated it. It took me many years. You didn't go to Catholic school during the week, Lynette. No, I couldn't afford that. Oh, well, there you go then. And I'll rot in high school. No wonder you needed an extra top up on Saturday. For goodness sake. No one. And, you know, and it's so funny because I was at my granddaughter's graduation who is in Sydney.
As you know, I was there. And she graduated from Catholic school. And we got there and I was brought up that you never, ever took communion without having to go to the old, you know. Confession. Confession. And he said, you've got to say ten Hail Mary, blah, blah, blah. Yeah. And all these people like Ariana said to me, she said, Mum, you come. And I said, I don't think so, buddy. You know, it's not the way I was brought up.
So probably about 30 years ago, I never used to have a bloody drink on Christmas Eve because it was midnight mass and all that shit. And I would go there and I'd watch all these drunk hypocrites, drunk as skunks, so-called bloody seat warmers, I call them, you know, rocking there. And I thought, that's it. That is it. And I've only come back to not Catholic church, they can go and stick it sideways, but like the devil up his ass.
With a chisel. Yeah, with a chisel up his ass. And I just thought, this is so wrong, man. It's so wrong, you know. But anyway, I thought I'd throw that wee saying in. I got it wrong, though. What does Heidi say? I used to make stuff up when I went to confession. I always thought it was no good of the priest to know what I might have done. We actually said stupid things like, oh, I told a white lie.
He would never say, what was it? He'd just say, I'd just go and say, five Hail Marys. Whatever. Yeah, weirdo. Anyway. That's my wee funny for the night. Yeah. Biggest attraction was the word ass in the poem. Oh, yeah. I mean, Susan's on board. She knows it, too. She's got the bloody head off. Yeah. You're a kid, eh? That's so funny. Anything like that. Anyway. Seriously, though, Eric has put some stories up. And, you know, the Pied Piper.
Now, that is a scary, scary story. Right. All right. And, you know, the story that it was the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Hamelin's a city. Well, it's a city. Oh, I think it was a cathedral. Too long. Yeah. But it was the story that. Did he get rid of the rats for the people first? Didn't they? Go on the Pied Piper. Yeah, yeah. That's a song. But the Pied Piper. We got rid of the rats for the people.
And then they would, by piping to them. So it was like a pan the Piper story. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.
