The conversation revolves around various news topics, both international and national. The speaker discusses a Swiss case involving forced vaccination and the legal action taken against it. They also mention a family suing Pfizer in Thailand for alleged fraud. The speaker then talks about international law and the possibility of countries setting up their own courts to extradite individuals. They mention the International Criminal Court and how criminals from Rwanda were tried in Belgium. The speaker also talks about positive news domestically, such as the withdrawal of a hate speech bill and discusses the Health and Safety at Work Act in relation to COVID-19 workplace policies. They argue that COVID-19 is not a workplace illness and question the legitimacy of vaccine mandates under the act. They also mention financial incentives for doctors to vaccinate and the inducement of children with offers of money. The speaker expresses frustration and suggests that crimes against humanity tria
All the various things going, so I don't have to interrupt their flow. Hi, sorry about that. Hey, no worries Liz, I'm just getting Facebook going and then we'll be into it. Yeah, I got a bit distracted with some news. Oh, that's exciting. Well, yeah, it's been quite a big day for news actually. Both on the international and the national theme. Both very good pieces of news. Which do you want first, the national or the international? Oh, I don't know.
I'll start with the international because I listened to a couple of lawyers from the United States this morning on a, oh see, I forget what the channel is that anyway. Oh, it's Locals, is it Locals? No, no, it was another channel that you get news on. But anyway, he was commenting, I think I was commenting on the, what's it called, the Swiss case. It appears that going up through, somebody was forced to get a vaccine. I'm not sure what industry he was in, but it was a kind of an employment law, came out of an employment situation in Switzerland and he didn't want to do it and so he took it up through the courts and it appears that the, possibly the Prime Minister, I'm not too sure what the thing is, but definitely the Minister of Health had been arraigned to appear before the Swiss courts.
First time, this is the first time, this is the first patient. I don't know if they were arrested. I would have think, I think they might have been arrested, but I can't remember whether he received that or not. Okay. And then he also spoke about, and he had inside knowledge about a family in the, you know, like probably a royal family. And I'm not sure whether he was talking about the Thai case or there was, there might have been even, I think he might have said Middle East.
He said East anyway. Yeah, the Thai case was interesting. And that family wants to, wants to sue Pfizer, is going after suing Pfizer, scrapping the, so I think it is the Thai case actually, scrapping the Pfizer contract on the basis of fraud. Now, what his next comments were, the more interesting to me, because that's something that I had realised from reading that book. I'll show you the book. I haven't got very far with it at the moment.
Oh, it's backwards. It says Crimes Against Humanity. Oh, that's round the right way. We can see that. That's round the right way for you. Yep. Yep. It says Crimes Against Humanity. Geoffrey Robertson. Ah, yep. Yep. Now, it's a really thick book and it's tiny, tiny, so I haven't got that far. But what he's talking about a lot in it is the development of international law, the law of nations and crimes against humanity. And what this lawyer was saying this morning when I was watching was that if Switzerland could set up an international, could set up a court and subpoena people from other countries, they could get them extradited, for example.
Remember when I was talking about this book before and I said, oh, they're talking about this guy, he was the lawyer who sued Saddam Hussein, I think, in the absentia. Also Pinochet, right? They were both taken to the UK. Pinochet definitely was in the UK. Died in the UK, didn't he? He was in too old or something. He couldn't appear because he had cancer or some crap like that. But he was also saying any country that wants to can set up their court and on the basis of, you know, they've got the right evidence and everything, they could get Biden out of the US.
Because it doesn't look like the US is all that keen to do anything at the moment. But it would be more likely if a citizen of their country had been affected by something that happened in the US, probably that would be the situation. However, thinking about The Hague, right, that's the International Criminal Court, right? That's really where everybody should be getting summons to, right? But, yeah, I think I talked about the Rwandan criminals. They were taken out and tried in Belgium.
So, yeah, because Belgium, they didn't have the law. They didn't have the laws that they could be tried under in Rwanda. So they took them out to Belgium. Anyway, so, very, looking extremely, extremely good on the international scene. The crims here must be shaking in their boots, although they still seem to think that the rest of the world doesn't know we exist, or that they've done such a good smoke job that, you know, we're supposed to be, they're supposed to be squeaky clean and did a terrific job and that.
But I think there's a bit of a shock when the international press wasn't, you know, especially from the US people saying, you know, the dictator and the Australians calling her out, etc. Right. Now the domestic good news is that Chris Hipkins, you remember the hate speech stuff? Yep. Chris Hipkins withdrew that last one today, which was the religious one. Okay. So, Amanda, no more, and we can say in the case, right, hate speech failed because the people of this country thought that freedom of speech was more important.
Right. So they have no moral, let's say, they have no moral authority to be persecuting people and trying to wreck their lives just because they have exercised their protected free speech. Okay. So a couple of really good pieces of news today. Okay. So we're going to get a bit dry again now and talk about these places and their so-called vaccine policies. Right. Now, Emma's got prepared, I think, it's got ready the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Yep. Yep. So we can go to section 36 of that and we'll go through it. And we can talk about something that has kind of been there right from the very start, that we couldn't really, probably should have pushed it harder, but yeah, you know, we had this silly attitude from lawyers that, well, that happened in the United States, so, you know, it's not to do with the law here. Oh, sorry, what we should do first, Em, is let's have a look at this, okay? Let's have a look at this.
Now, we'll have a look at this and then we'll go back and we'll have a look at the employment law, what's it called? Oh, he's here. Employment law page, what is it? Employment New Zealand. Employment New Zealand page, yep. Okay. Let's have a quick look at this first and then we'll go back and apply it. Right. So this is a piece of legislation that you're all familiar with. This is the Health and Safety at Work Act.
And, you know, as soon as they started to virtue signal, they were talking about how they've got to ensure the health and safety of people at work. We're keeping you safe. We're keeping you safe. Right. So they, and of course, all the language of the orders was couched in the form of the Health and Safety at Work Act, the PCBU, and everything like that. So, you know, it was all risks and risk management, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, you must remember that I've always said, well, COVID-19 is not a workplace hazard. It's not a workplace illness. It's not industrial disease. I don't know what else, what other names they had for it. I pointed out that the, back in January of 2022, we had, I think it was prior to the Yardley case, was the American case of the Supreme Court of the United States. Six to three decision. They talked quite a lot about the three branches of government and how they're independent of each other, et cetera, et cetera.
How Biden's mandate for all employee, workplaces, sorry. Over 100 workers had to either have the workers vaxxed or that they had to be tested, I think it was daily, with PCR tests. Right. So the Supreme Court of the United States, that's the one who hears all of the, you know, the big challenges. Very hard to get your case in there. But anyway, it was quite funny because the actual, I think the people who brought the case were the employers.
Right. Because they didn't want to have to, they were losing workers. I think that was partly it. And also they were probably having to provide all of the safety gear, et cetera, et cetera, including the masks and the tests and God knows what. Right. And that would have been a big, because all the contracts probably had them in them. And they had a lot of, if you're a, I don't think you can have collectives in workplaces that are smaller than 100 workers in the United States.
I think that's the limit, that's the lower limit. But anyway, the mandate that Biden had put in was affected 84 million workers. It was struck down. Wow. And that, and of course, in the judgment was the fact that because it had been promulgated under OSH, which is the equivalent of our WorkSafe, the OSHA, they called it the OSHA mandate, actually. And COVID-19 is not a workplace illness. Okay. COVID-19 is not a workplace illness. Yep. So, with that in mind, we look at Section 36.
And then we look at, so Subsection 1, they must ensure the, as far as reasonable practical, the health and safety of workers who work for the PCB while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking. And then the other one is workers who are influenced or directed by the PCB while the workers are carrying out work. So, if you're, you know, you're out working, say you work for the council and you were out, you know, driving your mower, they've got to make sure that the mower, because that's a workplace as well, the mower is a safe thing to operate.
Okay. Right. A PCBU must ensure, as far as reasonably practical, that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part, and here we get to the first mention of the conduct, okay, from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking. Okay. So, if the worker is out mowing the grass at the park for Auckland Council and they're taking their break and they decide they'll play a bit of frisbee and they chase it straight into the pond and didn't notice and, you know, get half drowned.
Okay. That is not part of the conduct of the business or undertaking. Okay. The PCBU could not be held responsible for that, even though, you know, he's possibly at a workplace. Okay. But it's got to be, he's not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking. Okay. So, then we go down to three, without limiting subsection one or two, a PCBU must ensure, as far as is reasonably practical.
Now, we go right down to G then, because the rest is all about, you know, safe plant and structures, systems of work, safe handling, storage, plant and substances. Yep. Right. Here we go. Now, in terms of that one, safe substances, handling substances, people working in a lab, for example, they might be in danger of the substances there or any chemicals, right? Okay. G. So, what do we got to remember that the PCBU has to, you know, as far as reasonably practical, ensure that the health of workers and the conditions at the workplace are monitored.
Monitored. Okay. So, you've got to check into things for the purpose. Why do you monitor? For the purpose of preventing injury or illness of workers. Oh, you think, well, you know, COVID-19, but arising from the conduct of the business or undertaking. COVID-19 doesn't arise from the conduct of any business, really. Oh, we were talking about this today, actually, and Simon was saying, oh, it could be if you're mixing, you know, if you're mixing something up in the lab at Wuhan, that might be an example of that.
Okay. So, you might get infected with something if you're mixing up. And that would only be the case, Alice, if it wasn't already out in the community, like COVID was already out in the community. Well, COVID is what's called public health risk. Okay. Now, the other thing about this whole thing about the Health and Safety at Work Act is it's as far as reasonably practical. I've already spoken before, I think, about the difficulties of proving where the hell you got COVID-19, right? Because it's out in the community, you could get it on the way to work, you could get it at work, you could get it leaving work, you could have got it, you know, because it's got an incubation period.
There was absolutely no reasonable way that an employer could have been held responsible if people got COVID-19. Couldn't be done, couldn't be done. So, it's quite clear. And the reason that the Act is written this way and all about arising from the conduct of business or undertaking is to protect the business from liability, right? And they stepped right into it, right up to their knees in it, right up to their neck in it, out of foolishness.
So, okay. So, let's go and have a look now at what the latest is about these workplace policies. What does Employment New Zealand have to say about them? Okay. And thanks to Michael for this. He sent it over a couple of days ago and I've only just had a chance to look at it today. Okay. So, on this page, let's have a look at work requiring COVID-19 vaccination. Okay. So, what do they say? The last workforce with a government vaccine mandate is health and disability workers.
This will end, so this is sort of going back, right? This will end on 26 September 2020. Some employers may still require workers to be vaccinated due to their responsibilities under health and safety legislation. Right. Now, the second part of that, employers may require workers to be vaccinated due to their responsibilities under health and safety legislation. Now, what would you say they would be? They don't have any, do they? No, it's bullshit. It's bullshit. Yep. So, this is Employment New Zealand.
This is supposed to be something that, you know, people can look at. So, then they say a business or workplace may still consider a vaccination requirement as appropriate based on a work health and safety risk assessment under the Health and Safety at Work Act. So, even providing with them, you know, all of this, requirements under the Health and Safety apply to conversations with all workers. This includes conversation on vaccination requirements. So, you could get guidance from these folks as well to get this health and safety assessment.
I think they had a form even, Liz. Yeah. Yeah, they did. But it says under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and you won't even find that, will you? Like, under those circumstances? You could. You could. Well, not under these circumstances. Not for vaccines. Vaccines for, you wouldn't find them. They made some. They made some up. You can. They do do this for, they do do health and safety risk assessments and, you know, as how to do them, guides for workplaces.
So, for example, if you've got, you're working in mines, for example, or some fairly, some fairly dangerous workplaces, right, then you can, you can ask them to help you put together a health and safety risk assessment. And that would be, you know, how, you know, what sort of, what sort of guards you have to have on, on slicing machines and, you know, all sorts of stuff like that. If you're working in gaseous situations, you know, you've got to have special equipment that doesn't spark and all sorts of, you know, good stuff like that.
Absolutely fine. But when you, when we can finally get it through the thick heads of employers that actually, look, this, read, read the Health and Safety at Work Act. It can't possibly be a requirement that you have to have, you have to even do anything called a risk assessment because you're only supposed to be looking at what's coming out of the conduct of the business or undertaking the work that's going on in the... This isn't even forward, Liz.
This is, sorry, this isn't, this is forward. This is outright forward. Oh. Yeah, well, when we find, when we found out how much, when we found out how much the doctors were getting to vaccinate and to set up the clinics, I think they got, I think we're talking this morning, Erica said they got $10,000 to set up a clinic and all that would have been required was, I think, a fridge. They had, and maybe the PPE gear or something.
But they got, then they got, then they got paid for each vaccination they did. And then just to make sure, of course, that the doctors code the line, they had their medical boards and whatever threaten them that, I think it was something like 35 during the week and 45 during the weekend. To get, so they got paid a whole lot of money. And then just to make sure, they threatened them that they'd lose their licences unless they spoke nicely about the vaccine.
Right. And coerced them, of course. Oh, and they got extra for phoning Maori and Pacific people. Oh, my God. Isn't it horrific? Isn't it just horrific? Yep. Yep. Oh, and you got more on the marae. Oh, my God. Those bastards. Man. See, they're concerned about their alleged claims. That's why they attack the Maori so strongly, the Maori people. Because they can't get them on their lands. So if they wipe them out, then they can take their lands.
Yep. That's true. Yeah. But of course, you know, who was at the top of all of that, that was going to inherit everything, probably, were the elites. You know, did you see the KFC year? Yeah, that's inducement. Which is also unlawful. Hey, the kids are offering the kids $50. Yes. Now, I'd love to get in touch with those people whose kid was offered $50, right? And find out who the vaccinator was. Because remember that we talked in the last Zoom about what people can do in terms of making a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner, right? Yep.
And get that person who did the vaccine, because of course, the people who did the vaccine were all supposed to be health professionals. Okay? Registered health professionals. Because it was, you know, I don't care. Because all of those people who got the vaccine are actually under law. They are health consumers. Yeah. You're right, Annette. And Fuming is kind of like... Yeah. Yeah. I think the international, the rest of the world will probably be the last to actually pick up, but I don't think that the authorities have got anything to stand on now.
I mean, our next, as you saw with Alan, he's already on to the authority about trying to keep people out because of money, which is basically what they tried to, you know, they tried to pervert the course of justice, really. Make it too expensive for people. Yeah. And tried to drive him out of business. Yeah. And partly did. But there's also, to be considered, is those judicial reviews that, in terms of comparing group rights with individual rights, they need to be, all of those need to be reviewed as well and struck down.
So I don't know how many judges are going to be retiring soon because this is just, you know, it just gets worse and worse. And, you know, I mean, to a certain extent, I don't want to really talk too much about the VACs injuries today because it was just, I think we talked about two hours about that on Friday. Yeah. And it was pretty, pretty harrowing because I've been looking at the VACs reports all weekend and, yeah, pretty horrible.
And we've got a lot more information now about when we come to the crimes against humanity trials, which will ensue. And remember that one of the criminal requirements is that you link up intent. Okay. So there's got to be, you know, this has got to be mens rea. Okay. That's the part of the criminal that you have to, we'll get them on the civil, no problem. But in the criminal world, you also have to prove intent, right, for the manslaughter at least.
And the VACs, each vaccination had a number, okay, had a vial number. And then when people reported an adverse event, they were given a adverse event number. And that adverse event number apparently, and we'll give you more information on this when we get it, but that can now be linked to exactly where and who and what, you know, when they reported it and actually not just the report, but much more detail on a system that hadn't been, let's say, hadn't been available to New Zealand.
We didn't think it was available to New Zealanders, but because there's a requirement under the SDA, apparently, in the States, that if you license your product to another country, and you have to, and there's adverse events, effects from it, you have to then have those reported into the VA system. So there are a lot of reports, very special reports, in that system. Because we've got CALM, remember, CALM is the New Zealand one, which has got something like 68,000 adverse events reports in them, and that's apparently about 5%.
And we know how difficult it was to get that adverse event actually reported. And when you look at the breakdown on the reports, you can see that by far the largest number reported was self-reporting. So people who were ill actually had to go and self-report because they couldn't get the bloody doctors to do it. Yeah. So I haven't got much sympathy for the doctors, as you can tell. Okay, so we can break with that, I think.
And people can ask about how they might use this information and get familiar with it so that, you know, they can, if they're looking for jobs, you remember that it's unlawful under the Human Rights Act to actually advertise that you want to have people vaccinated. But when people then apply for the jobs and see the contracts, they've often got this stuff in it. So you need to be ready to explain to the employer, listen. It's actually, you know, unlawful to do that.
Is anyone going to bring WorkSafe to task? Because, I mean, they were the driver behind it. Yeah, well, WorkSafe, as you remember, I wrote the letter for WorkSafe and pointed out that they are liable, as enforcers, okay, if they, under the, what's it called, the protection, the protection from liability section in the 2020 Act. Now, I think that's section 16, if somebody want to have a look at that. But it says in there that, you know, they get their protection from liability for anything they do under section 129 of the Health Act 1956.
And then if you go to that section, you'll find out that, yes, they definitely are protected even if they make mistakes. However, it's got to be, they've got to be careful, but they must be careful and they must always act in good faith. Now, if they were getting paid, right, they're getting paid to do this stuff, there's no good faith there. They should have known that COVID-19 was not a workplace hazard. They are the regulators of that Act.
They should have known the Health and Safety and Work Act back forward and around about. And yet, they were still hassling workplaces. So I think any workplaces definitely, and this is how I envisaged it in the first place, that any workplaces that got hassled, they basically send the letter in the first place to push them off and say, I'm going to take you to court. You know, this is bad faith what you're doing. You're trying to get me to break my contracts with my employees.
I'm not even allowed to touch them, let alone, you know, test them and encourage them to get vaccinated. With a dangerous product. Yeah. Yeah, well, employers didn't know that, but I mean. They didn't look, though, did they? No, they didn't look. And there's also this thing of due diligence, right? This is, you know, the question gets asked. The other people who I would encourage to complain, and I mean, they might feel a bit sorry for the pharmacist, but she admitted she didn't read what had come through from Medsafe.
She's another one that needs to be complained to the Disability Commissioner. And of course, that person, as I said last time, she needs to step down because she was the person who did an investigation and got the prosecution of Shelton and the other doctor. I forget the other doctor's name, for God's sake. We've got Counterspin in the house, Liz, if you hadn't. Oh, OK. Hi, Counterspin. Hi, Kelvin. Kelvin. Yeah. Do you want to join in the chat or? Yeah, yeah.
Dr. Cannaday. Thank you, Steph. That's here. Dr. Shelton and Dr. Cannaday. Getting Shelton's name was really hard, but I've got it now. And Cannaday. OK. Lovely. Thank you very much. I love the idea. Sort of comment I'd make. Yeah. Yeah. Dr. Dale, health centres. Now, this thing about the health centres, right, there's another thing about health centres. I think they need to be pushed a bit. Like people complaining to the Health and Disability Commissioner about the fact that they're trying to get people to wear masks.
If you're a patient, or you work there, right, and who else goes to the dandy places? OK. You're not, under the old traffic light system, you weren't required to wear masks. OK. So, that first. I also think the health centres, anybody who knows anybody who went and got jabbed there, and especially if they're suffering, needs to make a complaint to the Disability Commissioner. And then they'll soon be as pleasant and as squeaky clean. It was like when, you remember we reviewed the Mankind Search for meaning? Yeah.
And the guy was talking about when the Nazis realised, when the camp guards realised that they were losing the war, they couldn't be nicer. Right? Couldn't be nicer. So, and I have a feeling there's something happening too in some of our cases. There's suddenly a very quiet, respectful distance being put between us and certain other people. So, very good. OK, so anybody got any comments or questions about the Section 36? Never have worn one, but they now leave me alone.
Good on you. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I never wore one at our non-health centre either. Liz, does WorkSafe have a duty of care to the individual, or are they primarily advising the employer? What I'm hinting at is, is there an implied trust between the individual and WorkSafe where they're working as a trustee, supposedly for our interests? No, they're not working as a trustee for our interests. They're bound under the Health and Safety at Work Act to act in good faith.
But they don't work for us, they work for the employer? No, they don't work for the employer either. They're tasked with making sure that the employer keeps a safe workplace. They're usually the enforcers. Right. That's why you don't get any lawyers who know anything about the Health and Safety at Work Act. It's them who comes in and grabs the employer and says, you know, you haven't come up to scratch because somebody's been injured in your workplace.
And there's no, I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case.
I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. And there's no oversight on WorkSafe, is there? If this is a problem, they just make bullshit up. Well, see, this is the thing, though, that they got themselves into the real bind under section 16, I think it is, or 34. Sorry, where am I getting? Half of it, probably. No, it's not. It's 34. Section 34 of the 2020 Act. Under that, they've got protection as in anybody who, you know, under the 2020 Act does anything, right? They possibly weren't expected to do anything.
I mean, this is the thing. As involved in it, they were right from the start. They were going around to employers saying, make sure you get these people tested and da-da-da-da, right? Yeah, they seem to be the ultimate driver at the end of the day. Yeah, yeah. And, of course, they look over it at the 2020 Act that gave them this authority, the Enabling Act, if you like. And they say, oh, no, well, OK, we didn't actually know, but yeah.
Well, the section 29 of the Health Act where they get their protection, it gives them all of that protection. Even if they behave fraudulently, which is what they've done. Well, that's absolutely bad faith, right? Yeah. Absolutely bad faith. And that is, they lose their protection from liability again. So they can be sued. Absolutely. So who ultimately holds them accountable, us or is it? The employer probably. Yeah. Right. I don't know. I don't know. You could make a complaint, I guess.
You know, I mean, these are going to take cases in the courts to do. These aren't going to go through the Employment Protection Authority. The obvious question is, then, do you think there would be an employer that would have the guts to take on WorkSafe? Well, I don't know what guts is required. I mean. You're pretty scared of WorkSafe. WorkSafe are going to be so shamed that, you know, this is the thing. With now, people actually who are terribly injured or whose relatives have died, et cetera, are actually putting up their hand in public and yelling it out.
In Waitangi Day, you know, that was amazing to see that. Yeah. So a little patience on my part. We'll see if things happen. Yeah, I reckon. Yeah. Yeah, I reckon. Oh, sorry. Jeff's got a question. Yeah. Go for Jeff. Well, it's more a comment, actually, than a question. I just wanted to go back to what Liz was saying about WorkSafe being protected from liability. But at the risk of banging on about insurance, I'll do it. I will do an OIA request to WorkSafe and find out what public liability employers and professional liability they have.
Because they may be protected from liability under that Act. No, they're not, John Chief. That's what I'm saying. They're not. Okay. I'm assuming they were. But they're still not protected from liability under an insurance policy. No. And this is, again, a weapon that we have. I wonder if anybody's – if you've done anything about making – No, the insurance policy doesn't protect you from liability anyway. It protects your pocket from getting, you know, emptied. Well, yeah.
What I'm saying is insurance claims can be filed without going to court. And they can't escape what – You can have a go. Have a go. But you've got to remember that you've got to be – when you're filing that claim, you've got to be the one who's suffered the harm. Exactly. And that's what we have to do. We need to find somebody like Nicky who suffered the harm with Life Pharmacy. Yep, yep. Somebody like that who's willing to give you a go.
Yeah, of course. And I'm willing to help you out. Of course. Absolutely. No problem in picking up all of your weapons and smacking them with them. Yep. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah, nice meeting you. So they could take an action against the vaccine they had against the employer and WorkSafe? Yep, I reckon you could. You could. Can you do that combined or do you have to go them individually? No, no. We have to do them all separately. The vaccinator – well, there's two ways with the vaccinator.
One is suing them under, you know, as a straight, probably, assault, something like that. I mean, they're talking about doing this in the United States because they should have known that the stuff was dangerous. And then you've got your, kind of, your civil claim, if you like, as a health consumer. But WorkSafe, you've got – yeah, it's much more likely that the businesses – they've been harmed terribly. And a lot of them are going to get sued a lot.
But also, it's not just what they could suffer from having to meet damages claims through, you know, employment court or employment authority. It's what they lost with all of this closed down, all of this rubbish about, you know, you've got to stay – you're only allowed to have so many people in your restaurant. You know, you've got to lock down. You know, you've got to – you know, we're coming around and we're checking on you. Those sorts of things, direct – you know, you go after the easy stuff first.
I mean, in terms of the actual Act, I believe it was ultra-vires right from the beginning. And the person who needs to be directly scrutinized under a judicial review for that is the Attorney General. Because he is supposed to make sure that any Act, for a start, doesn't breach the – doesn't breach the BORA. Okay? But also, it would be illogical if you have an Act that directly contravenes the Public Health Act 1956, which is where you've got your – what would you call – your protection from liability.
I mean, he's a lawyer. He's the top lawyer of the country. And he can't look at that. And also, the other thing is groups. Okay? So it would be a straight-out – it's a straight-out breach of BORA and the whole scheme of BORA, because groups under BORA don't have any rights. Okay? Yeah. But they do – and I'm talking about groups in terms of the State as the big group, right, the biggest group. They have responsibilities and can be sued, right? But they can only be sued by – they can only be sued by the individual.
So what I'd say also is that the judges are in trouble too, because they allowed Section 5 to be used to the detriment of all of those individuals who sued, to try and, you know, protect their right to – under Section 11, isn't it? Under Section 11 and 10. Because they allowed – they allowed the idea to be promulgated, basically, that the public had some sort of right against the individual. The public has no right against the individual, not under the Bill of Rights Act.
So they couldn't use Section 5 and balance it out. Yeah? Might also bear in mind, Michael, that not just works here have liability insurance, but doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, Uncle Tom Copley and all have it. And also now things are coming up – somebody just mentioned the Lone Star Restaurant. I have a sneaky feeling that business interruption claims might be able to be put in as well, because that would be absolutely amazing for so many businesses. But insurance is a weapon.
It really is. And Liz is doing a fantastic job on the legal side, but the insurance side of it really is complementary to it. Yes, of course it's complementary. Yeah, because you can get some money justice if nothing else. Exactly. Yeah, no, that business interruption insurance, yeah, that's a good one to go after, a WorkSafe insurance on that. Yeah. Hmm. So if someone dies from the vaccine, is it possible to lay a charge of murder on someone? Or attempted murder in this case, if a lot of people – Well, I think it's manslaughter.
I think it's manslaughter. I think it's manslaughter. I think it's manslaughter. You probably – unless you get somebody who knows what's in the – well, say Jacinda. You know, people have said, you know, she's a murderer. Technically not, because she probably never vaxxed anybody. So Medsafe will ultimately be the final accountability, will they? Oh, no, no, she'll be accountable because she signed off a lot of the orders. She also had a lot – she was advised from – and I don't know where the person got it, but I think – what's it called? Not the Guardian, what's it called? The Daily something.
You know, that sort of alternative news source we've got. And, yeah, the discussions that they had about how they – you know, who was going to be jabbed. She was obviously after everybody that could – you know, anything that moved should be jabbed. And she was told about the – she was told about the Bill of Rights problems. And that's all redacted in the report. But she was definitely told. And, you know, she should go down for a hell of a long time.
But I can't see the criminal, unless he can prove, you know, in terms of killing people, that she could be done for murder. So, Liz, could that possibly come under the fact that there are videos out there of Clare Schwab, who she's obviously trained with, about the depopulation? Could that come into that under manslaughter with an intent to depopulate our nation? With an intent to, through that, depopulate? Yeah, you'd have to have the evidence of them talking together about it.
You know, they probably email people and stuff. If they produced an email and she said, hey, look, we've decreased them X, Y, Z. Look how many we've knocked off. You know, that would be the perfect email. And, you know, that would show intent. That would show, you know, that at least she would be a party, let's say. She would be a party to an offence, probably. Yeah. Yeah. Assisting, you know, assisting, it used to be that assisting suicide was a crime.
They've been quite careful, 18 and a bit, yeah. But there's years, I mean, you could get her on so many charges, you could make her, you could put her away for the rest of her life. It's the same, isn't it, too, with the new people that have come up as well, that haven't already been swooped out of the beehive. Because, I mean, I don't watch the news really at all. But I did see the Minister of Everything, as my friend calls him, now the PM, saying that if you're not dabby dab, then we're going to come after you at some point.
Yeah. Now that's a threat, really. It was a threat. It was a threat. And probably, he's possibly, because he said that, you know, that's a threat, and it's a threat to kill. But did he know that the jab had a possibility of injuring you? So you've got to line all of these things up with your proof. Yeah. Yeah. You've got to provide evidence of stuff. So you've got to have bits of paper. You've got to have emails.
You've got to have all this and that. Yeah. Yeah. Don't worry, guys. They're going down for a long time, whether they go down. I don't think, I don't know, the international court, oh, that's right, that's right. Oh, there was something more about the international courts. They are run by military tribunals. Okay. And I think it's because there's often in these cases quite a few judges that have been part of the crimes against humanity. Now, for example, at Nuremberg, there were a whole lot of bureaucrats tried as well.
They usually got about, they did all of the big stuff, you know, few of them. There was so few killed, but there was so few actually executed. But apparently there was thousands of bureaucrats who got about an average of five years in jail. Goebbels' secretary was one. But also, although I think he died or committed suicide, I can't remember, they had show trials, right, of people. And they got rid of Jews out of the judiciary. They weren't allowed to go to university.
They weren't, you know, all sorts of stuff, all that sort of employment stuff, really, early on. And, you know, there was a whole lot of judges, so-called judges, enforcing these horrific laws that were just, you know, designed to kill. And so I think that was the reason. I mean, we just had, the war was just over, but I think the reason that they were military tribunals was because they had to try judges. And in New Zealand, we've got, I think it's called the, you know, when you have a, when you're up on a charge, if you're in the forces, what's it called? Court-martial.
I think there's a Court-martials Act, right, which gives the law in New Zealand about how you set up court-martials. And I think it would be court-martials and run by the military in that style, you know. And the lawyers will probably be from the military. So I think, you know, if we have any of those courts convened in New Zealand, then they'll be overseen by the Army. The Army or the Navy? I reckon we should have them for the Australians here.
We should send our lot to Australia. That's how I think it would be fairer. So, Liz, you kind of see it that the actions you're taking will awaken the population to the point where the military are forced to act. And generally, it'll be the Navy, not the Army, isn't it? Because isn't the Navy the highest military group? Well, I'm not too sure who was in the, who was prosecuting in the Nuremberg trials. It could have been all three of them.
They could have had, you know, sort of like a prosecutor who was from the Navy, a judge who was – because I think they have a fairly small – they're pretty quick. You know, they go through with this stuff pretty quick, apparently. No appeals. It's hard to appear with bullets. Yeah, that's the case. But, yeah, do I think – I think I've got my part to play. I think we've all got our part to play. I think the most powerful thing that's going to happen, though, is the outrage of the vaccinated and their families.
Yeah, that's really what's going to pull it all down. Because, you know, I mean, people will say, you know, their house falls down, they have a car crash, they get out alive unscathed, and they say, well, thank God I'm alive. You know, nothing really matters if you're still alive and have your health. But these people have had death and, you know, destruction of their health. They're not going to leave it. They've got nothing to lose at this point, really, have they? Well, they don't.
Yeah, they don't, a lot of them. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, doing something, I think, you know, we're all – you've got to remember, Jeff, we're all – most of us are unvaccinated. Most of us have got friends or family who have been that we fear for. But it's nothing like actually, you know, I don't think we can understand completely how betrayed those people feel who've actually, you know, suffered it. Or, I mean, it's the same if you're a parent and your child.
Although, I mean, yeah, like this is the thing. Those people whose child come home and said, I've got 50 bucks and I've got jabs, anything happens to that kid, mad. Yeah, you just – yeah, I know what I'd feel like doing. Yeah, don't think – yeah, well, spread the Zooms around, Jeff. Spread the Zooms around. You know, share them. They're on Rumble now. All you have to do is go to Rumble and share them. The easiest thing to do is to – and I don't know if there's a sharing button on, but is there a share button? Yeah.
There is? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the other thing you can do is, you know, copy and paste the URL and put that in an email and send it to somebody. That's another way you can do it. Yep. Oh. Yep. And, you know, get it out there. But I had a look at the videos and there's – you know, it used to be, oh, two or three people. I don't think a lot of people – you're able to get there or whatever.
But, yeah, I mean, look at today. What a day. International and – I mean, the free speech stuff. Yeah. We can get those doctors to get off their butts, the ones who were threatened. If they were threatened and they went ahead and encouraged people to get it, you know, they're not going to speak up. They're not going to speak up. But the ones, like, you know, who had their licenses taken away or just walked away from their surgeries, a lot of people said, well, I'm retiring then.
Those people need to, you know, sue – get a class action together and sue the medical council, the nursing council and the midwifery council. Liz, you're flat out with the stuff you're doing. Is there any lawyers that are looking at that area? I mean, you're pretty rare. I've been sending a suggestion around to a few lawyers I know. I think some of them are a little bit beaten down by the fact that, you know, the judicial reviews were a washout.
They've kind of lost faith in themselves a bit. Yeah, it's a shame your wins aren't documented, but you've got confidentiality clauses and stuff because it would create such momentum. Well, you know, we've got cases that are still up there. I mean, the free speech case is going to be fantastic. Yeah, that's going to be real, real interesting. Because, of course, talking about the jab was what brought it down on the head of the person who got into trouble.
And she didn't know we had formed a union. Oh, good. Adrienne, you tell her to come on board. What's it called, the page now? Is it called Section 83, Gateway to the Union? Number 8, yeah. Yep. Yep, so just join Number 8. Yeah, I told her that. It's actually really interesting because today we were on the train. Someone took me in on a speech yesterday and testing for kiwifruit and stuff. And this lady, sweet as got yakking, and she asked what I did.
And I told her I'd been unemployed for the last year and that I had been back-funded. What do you call it, Adrienne? Back-funded, lost the job and fired. And I said, what did you do? And she said, I was in HR for a company. And I said, oh, who? And she said, oh, a really big company. And I said, oh, did you leave there or did something happen? And she said, I left. And I said, oh, what was your reason for leaving? And she was really, like, quiet as a mouse.
And she said, I just didn't like the way it was going. And I said, what do you mean? And she said, well, what they were going to do. And I said, are you talking about the mandate? And she said, yes. And she said, I've done my HR degree. I've spent, like, 20 years doing all this sort of stuff. And she said, I just didn't want to go down that way. And I stopped and I looked at her and I said, thank you.
And she said, what for? And I said, for making a stand. And I said, realizing that each time you were to do this to someone because they chose not to take a bloody vaccine, that, you know, how would you feel the first time? The second time you have to do it. And by the end of the day, you've done 12 people and fired them or whatever. And then you've got the boosters coming up and you have to do the same thing.
And I said, and realizing that these people, like myself, got shoved into a corner, had to take it, got vaccine injured, then lost my job anyway. We've still got our house. Thankfully. But I know people that have lost their houses. And she said, she said, that was it. She said, I didn't want any part of it. And yeah, and it's amazing how you can sit by for lunch and find out that was it. And I told her, I said, you know, I said, I help out the union and we have formed.
And I was more talking about shares. Was that Section 83? And I said, yes, that's them. And I said, and we formed it this last year. And she said, oh, I used to watch all that when it was going on. And I said to her, I said, well, tell people about it. Tell people what's going on. And I said, it's now Section 83, Gateway 2, the number eight union. And she wrote down everything. And it was, you know, I still don't know her name.
It's ridiculous. And we just talked, we were like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah the whole time. And then, but she didn't realize that we had formed the union. So she was going to tell a whole lot of people from that. So I must get her number tomorrow and try to say more. Oh, good. So she'll be at work tomorrow. Hang on, I'm just going to turn the light on. Yeah. So it's interesting, though. And I think, you know, with the vaccine injury and how we're going to go along with it, I just can't wait.
I think it's exciting. And I don't know, I know there's people on here that are vaccinated too. But it's exciting for me. I'll probably start crying because it's had such a huge impact on my life. It's exciting to know that we're going to get these people because it is such a huge impact. And you lose family. The doctors write you off as not, ACC write you off because you haven't been diagnosed. Or you get called a schizophrenic bloody hypochondriac is their new word.
You know, and we've just been shoved to the corner like we are dirt. And it's so hard, you know, to lose family and friends. For me, my own personal experience, to have family not even ask how you are because they're not interested and they don't believe what's happening. And, you know, it's not just being injured. It's a mental thing. And we've all shared that side of losing friends and family. And, you know, your family, you sort of think the family is sick and thin.
But, boy, it's really hard. And I just watched a really good thing on children's health defense, which is by the Holocaust survivors. And they talk about it. And their grandkids don't want to listen to them, what's happening. And so they made this thing up and they talk about how it happened and what their whole, it's a five-part series. One part is an hour long. So it's five hours to watch. We watched it over a couple of nights.
But you learn history of what supported the, you know, the deep, dark state, I suppose, all these people that supported the Germans, which I didn't know. But their message is to say what they did back then to get these people to comply and turn around. And then it was too late, you know. And that was their message. And if I can give any recommendation for someone... What's this series called, Adria? I'll highlight the link and try and post it up here.
It's on Children's Health Defence, and I think it's called... I'm not sure. I'll go and look now before we get off and post it up. But it's worth a watch because at the end of the day, these are pensioners now, and some of them are, you know. And these heroic people that helped the Jews get through this and then got murdered afterwards for doing such amazing things for them. You know, it's a really good watch. And I said to Jeff, I said, God, if someone just would open their minds and watch this, because it's not only talking about what's just happened in the world with this pandemic, but it's the whole thing of how it happened to them and what they've done in it, which I think is very clever.
Like in the Nuremberg Code, when all the Germans were being, you know, tried and stuff like that before that happened, one of the guys said, how did you do it? How did you get them to all comply? And he said, it was easy. The Jewish people were so lovely and friendly and happy people. We just became their friends. And they worked for us. They started working in this. They had photos with them. They were all laughing together.
The kids went to school together. They had dinner at each other's places. And that's how they got them to have this, to put the blanket over their eyes as such. And then it just was all planned and formed. And, you know, you don't think they're that clever back then, but they got psychologists as such back then to, I suppose, do it. That's like the World Economic Forum, what they're doing globally with all this and how they're doing it and how they're turning it around and putting the next pandemic that's going to happen.
And I think the work that we're doing, because each week it's falling down, and the work that you're putting together, Liz, and the little nooks and crannies you're finding and having a twist on an act that's in there to make it think differently and actually saying, actually, this can apply here, you know. Well, I know I'm certainly grateful, and there's a lot of people out there who are grateful. Even this lady who hasn't watched for, it must be probably a year, I guess, for her not to know it.
She was like, Liz is amazing. She said, how did you get onto it? And I told her about the gym, you know, talking about WorkSafe. Someone was saying they're a pretty bunch of bullies. Well, you took that on with that guy that was in the gym, you know. And it was like, no, they're not the stuff. You've only sort of put them back in their seat. But it's putting them, it's actually putting everyone back in their seat and realising that there are rules for things, and people can't bully us.
And it's, you know, it's like all these things. Like today, I'm just realising I'm going to have to sign in with my thumbprint. Well, I don't want to do that. Well, what are they going to do with my thumbprint? You know, I mean, this job at Sega is so high-fi that to go into an orchard and leave an orchard, you have to go through nine apps just to enter. And they're tracking you the whole time you're working.
You're being tracked, which I don't have a problem with that. They need to do that for the fruit that they pick, right, and orchards and stuff. So, but this whole thing about signing in when you get in the building, well, I don't want to do that. What's wrong with me writing that I've signed in manually? And it's going to change to a wave of the hand. Well, I don't want to do that. And the girls said, well, this is our thing.
If you want the job, this is it. And I said to Jeff when I got home, I said, I don't want to do that. And he said, well, don't. So I've got to get to find out, you know, with that. Because it's like, well, if I've got your thumbprint, that's fine for having it. But where's it placed? Is it up in the cloud? Is it in the security thing? Do they delete it if you leave? Oh, this is all in preparation for pre-crime.
Is that what the movie was called? I don't know. But I'm really uncomfortable with it. So they have all of this. And, you know, I mean, Minority Report. That's it. Thank you. Yeah. I don't know. Yes, I do know. But the people who, you know, who were into all of this, they were also into enforcing all of this stuff on people. And we're going to get a real, real clean up of them. Yeah. I tell you what, everyone.
It's going to change the. Absolutely. Everyone, help us out in the union. If you know lawyers or someone that have lost their job. Look, I'm going to talk to this lady that worked in HR tomorrow. I thought about driving home and I'm going to ask her if she's interested in just helping us to write up things in the union and stuff like that. You know, we've got a really small team that are helping so many people.
And we need more people to come and help us. And, you know, we're learning things. I was just talking to Simon the other day and he said, I just love that we have this meeting. And he said, and Liz will come up with, oh, I found this the other day and blah, blah, blah, these meetings. And it makes it intriguing and interesting. And I suppose you're always growing with something rather than being the same old, same old.
But please ask people if they want to help on the legal side of things. We need advocates and, you know, to take on, you know, like looking at contracts. If you're whizzy on things like that. We need help. Yeah, I think you should have your own little team. I think you'd be a good organiser of a little team like that. Yeah, I'd love it. I wouldn't need to go and be fingerprinted. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, Cam does, Cam Bailey, she does a clinic.
If we could get some of these people who do clinics to maybe come and help you. And for a certain amount of time every week, answer some of the questions that members might have. It would just be, you know, like, I think it would just be good to get a team together, you know, and grow. Because I think, you know, we've got a big job ahead of us and we want to do so much. And when we've got a little team like we've got, helping so many people.
What I really want to see though, Adrienne, I want to see the state put their hands up and provide a huge resource. Where people can go as a one-stop shop and get all of it done and get it all sorted. Absolutely. Whether they'll have to arrest the top odds before that happens, I don't know. Things are moving extremely quickly. I don't know that any authority case can really be heard with a straight face anymore. A pro bono partner.
I've written to her and now I have to chase her up. An equal justice process. Okay. A pro bono partner for what? Geoff? Doing pro bono work, period, for the peasants, for the Great Unwashed. Yeah, is she going to go to the authority and do some cases? I don't know what she's doing. All I know is I found her when I was looking. I did a search for pro bono lawyers. Okay. And Simpson Greaveson. Yeah, well, the trouble is Simpson Greaveson are the council lawyers, right? Oh, yeah.
So they must have given the bloody advice to council that, yeah, you can go and shut the libraries, etc. But that's not to say we've got to say every lawyer is without redemption. They must be. You're right. Be positive. The equal justice project is also worth a look. I haven't written to them yet, but they're on my list. Yep. Well, yeah, we're looking forward to hearing that people have started to write. M, have we got the letter to the Disability and Health Commissioner on the website? Let me go and look.
We will do. It's all Goodman IP. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Better call for... It's all Goodman. Sorry. It's an offshoot from the Breaking Bad series. Yeah, it's all Goodman with an interesting lawyer, dodgy lawyer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Nah, they're called grifters, actually. They're a bit naughty. Yeah. Yeah, they're there. I mean, I think I'll tell you who I think's a grifter. Matthew McClelland is a grifter. Matthew McClelland prosecuted all of those nurses and midwives for free speech at the medical practitioners disciplinary tribunal.
And then he turned around and defended the two doctors in the district court. Not defended them, actually took the appeal for the two doctors. Exactly the same thing. Okay. Their free speech was infringed, but he didn't get their licenses back on that. He got their licenses back with a nice big fee, I should think, for himself. Yeah. So he runs with the hounds and whatever it is. It's all about the money. You're right, Jess. Can you remind me, Liz, which one you're looking for again? What am I finding? What am I finding? Because I've got section 36.3, the little bit you did about that.
3G? Yeah. Oh, yeah. I see. Have we got the letter that we took the names out? Because we've got one of the members is doing her letter to the health and disability commissioner. But I'd also like to see maybe a, I don't know if you can put a petition. Why don't we try that? What about a petition calling on the health and disability commissioner to resign? OK? Because she was involved in trying to break down free speech in the doctors.
And then she shouldn't be receiving any complaints about, she shouldn't be having any complaints put through her office. Her name's Morag McDowell. McDowell. That's her name. OK. Runs with the hares and hunts with the hounds. That's it. Hunts with the devils. That might be more accurate. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, there's a thought, guys. Have a think. Anybody keen on putting together a petition? Yeah. Or maybe, because it's probably not the sort of thing that, but we could do both.
Here's the thought. Somebody could put up a Givealittle to run a campaign to buy a billboard that said, you know, This is somebody who, you know, shouldn't be receiving complaints about doctors who jabbed you. Yeah. Something like that. Yeah. There's a local guy, Liz, Nick Bush or Napoleon, he calls himself. Oh, yeah, yeah. I know who you mean. Yeah. He's good on that, isn't he? Yeah. He's got a whole bunch of trailers and if people are prepared to pay for some signage.
Yeah. Hey, people, how about that? How about that? Yeah. He drives all around Auckland. How about William Bush? Okay. Let's try and get hold of him. Yeah. Well, I know how to get hold of him. Oh, good. Yeah. Let's talk to him. Actually, if he came on our next Zoom, we could have a good old chat and do some strategizing, eh? Yeah. I think he's got five. Karina would know, actually, that's on his... I think he's got like five trailers, or at least four, and he drives them all over the place.
They've got a lot of counterspin signage on them at the moment, but I'm sure he would be willing... Oh, I'm sure Kelvin and Hannah wouldn't mind if we booked him weeks as well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
