N8WUNZ

Another super good zoom. Liz takes us through Fitzgerald v Muldoon, 7a exemptions and other very important points. A definite must watch From a recent statement in reply from Liz "This case has frightening echos of Fitzgerald v Muldoon where a Minister of the Crown purported to change law already in place without the will of Parliament being engaged. This present situation has been a much more subtle process in that the Ministers themselves have not attempted to change law from ‘the Podium’, rather civil servants have inundated employers with “advice” and “guidance” which has convinced employers, as in this case, that the Covid Orders “read together” with their ‘advice’ and ‘guidance’ constitutes law." Bill of Rights 16881 No dispensing power That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal: Constitutional Collision by Stephen Koshttps://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/2014/3.html

What an awesome zoom! Updates from Barry Young's case. This case is going to blow things wide open! We also go over Section 92(I) 5 of the Health Act again as a reminder which says "In no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment." No if, buts or maybe's! Also the Privacy Act 2020 Information privacy principle 6 which deals with our right to - Access to personal information (1) An individual is entitled to receive from an agency upon request— (a) confirmation of whether the agency holds any personal information about them; and (b) access to their personal information. (2) If an individual concerned is given access to personal information, the individual must be advised that, under IPP 7, the individual may request the correction of that information. (3) This IPP is subject to the provisions of Part 4. We showcase a template which can be used for the above purpose to very good effect by obtaining behind the scenes discussions about you or related to you in your employment or other situations such as job applications We have a lovely visit from Kate Floss who has some interesting thoughts and information about the things she is working on. Thanks Kate! A very interesting zoom and another must watch!

This video needs little introduction. Listen for our latest and very exciting update on behalf of Barry Young. This will be a very exciting case thats for sure. The Mother Of All Cover UPs! The evidence coming out is going to send so many involved running for cover!

Erika is Number 8s OIA Queen! The information that comes from her OIA requests is so useful in all the work that number 8 does. So much is uncovered from those requests and are extremely valuable. Tonight Erika takes us through the online censorship that prevent people from researching the jab and finding people to help such as an "advocate". Many words, phrases and websites were blocked. Erika also takes us through google's helping the NZ Govt with google ads on you tube and the like. selling the jab using sports celebrities such as the Highlanders rugby team. The whole convid scam was one big marketing campaign!

A reassuring zoom for those moving in to fear mode over The NZ Plan-Scam-demic Plan and what powers "They" have to run us through the last 4 years all over again

This week a very useful OIA has revealed the existence of a MoH report "Science and Insights"report from 19 October 2021.The significance of this document is that it totally contradicted the purported need for the Education and Healthcare mandates, yet the Crown kept this information from the High Court in the NZDSOS/NZTSOS High Court hearing in March 2022. Its existence was only uncovered as Dr Town – Chief Science Advisor to the Ministry of Health – used it in the subsequent Orewa Community Church case to support his contention that churches had a much greater risk of transmission than schools! This report, released 19 October 2021, contains the analysis of the transmission of covid-19 in New Zealand between August and October 2021, using data the Ministry had obtained from their contact tracing. 5 main points - (copied from NZDSOS article) 1. This was the best and most relevant study that the Crown had in its possession concerning transmission of covid-19 in New Zealand schools and healthcare settings when they decided to implement the Education and Healthcare Workers mandates. a. It was the Government’s own data. b. The sample sizes were large (>11,000, >5000) making it very reliable. c. It relates to the Delta variant, which the courts have stressed as pertinent. d. It specifically analysed transmission within NZ school and healthcare settings. 2. It showed that educational and healthcare settings had incredibly low rates of transmission (only 1-2 in 1,000 contacts became infected), completely negating the need for the mandates. 3. It was produced** by the MoH before Hipkins signed the Education and Healthcare Workers vaccination orders. 4. The Crown’s expert witnesses (Drs Bloomfield and Town) as well as Hipkins omitted to share this information with the High Court in their sworn affidavits. 5. By withholding this highly relevant information from the High Court, Bloomfield and Town contravened the High Court rules for expert witnesses. (Dr Town did refer to a similar but much smaller study from NSW that had a higher transmission rate!) Transmissions Rates Education - 1 in 1000 or 0.1% Health care - 1 in 500 or 0.2% Work 0.6% Private gatherings - 10% We discuss a range of interesting points about this article and the cases relating to it Orewa Church case CIV-2022-485-9 [2022] NZHC 2026 16 - 17 June 2022 Science and Insights Report https://fyi.org.nz/request/27581-a-copy-of-trends-and-insights-report-full-analysis-of-vaccine-effectiveness-2021 Another must watch and share far and wide!

The unelected Crown in NZ - the executive. It is attempting to make parliament obsolete. We cannot let this happen! Parliament is meant to be working for the people. The Crown can only make secondary legislation. Secondary legislation is up for challenge by the people. Parliament makes primary legislation and should be for safeguarding we the people - The Crown is endeavouring to make all the rules for it's own gain. Taxing the serfs out of existence for example. The Devine Right of Kings ended a very long time ago - in 1649 with the execution of King Charles I due in large part to taxation and cruel treatment of the people of the UK. The English civil war was what led up to this All monarchies since then constitutional ONLY! They should be working for us! More NZdrs need to know this important piece of history. A must what and share to your open-minded friends that love this country

Tonights zoom is a very good reminder of the accuracy and power of the original Section 83 letters which Liz crafted back in early 2022. The S83 letter clearly raises a PG - Personal Grievance as described in the Employment Relations Act, with the PCBU/Employer. The term PCBU showed employers and their legal teams, even when under "the Order" that they needed to comply with the HSWA, and Section 83 is under that act. Employment Relations Act A PG must be raised within 90 days of the employee telling the employer of the problem occurring as per section 114(7)(b) Unjustified Disadvantage - Section 103(1)(b) in the course of employment. The Section 83 letter was trying to bring the employers attention to what they should be doing - but they were so brainwashed they had no ears to hear and are in big trouble now, hence why N8 is settling so many cases now. Many have finally realised how stoopid they were! Section 114(6) employee has a max of 3 years to bring a case against the employer A PG needs to be specific to your employer such as "you attempted to force an untested medical treatment on me, using coercion and bullying if I did not comply and I do not accept that being part of my employment". The employer's job is to identify hazards - not bring them in to the workplace. Employers should have been using the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016 not "Guidance or advice from MoH who have nothing to do with workplace safety or people's private businesses. The box-ticking "Risk Assessments" that were carried out never used the HSW Regulations which they should have. Clause 5 talks about "Identifying Hazards" and clause 6 talks about "Hierarchy of Control Measures" which in no way does forcing vaccinations on employees, play any part. A zoom participant mentioned farmers having to jabbed to have their milk picked up - this is a breach of contract situation and farmers have a grounds to sue Fonterra. A very good zoom once again thanks to our amazing Liz!

What a very enlightening discussion tonight; A definite must watch once again from Liz! More extensive notes to come - here are some topics covered 3 Branches of Government and how they fit together Constitutional Monarchy Divine Right of Kings Covid 19 HR Act (primary legislation with no vax provisions created by parliament) and Covid 19 Vax Orders (secondary legislation created by the executive branch) The Judiciary - What can they do? Plus so much more!

Once again a super interesting zoom! 

 Liz steps us through a case which she recently came across while looking for other information, as is the way it happens! 

 The case is https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2020-NZEmpC-46-JCE-v-The-CE-of-the-Department-of-Corrections-v2.pdf

 This case is about a workplace injury and a breach of contract situation. This is very exciting for us due to the breach of contract situation has 6 years window for it to be filed. 

 Liz was exploring framing within a PG in the context of remedies. These have to be from an Act/statute or common law. The above case was won in the ERA but his representatives said the ERA member didn’t separate out the PG from the Breach of Contract so there is more money owned to JCE the applicant. 

JCE suffered an assault in his workplace at Corrections and due to the nature of his injury and the deterioration of his employment relationship with his bosses, they retired him for medical reasons. This case is his journey to receiving the remedies he lawfully should receive This is a super interesting case that gives us very useful case law for Vax injury as a workplace injury, the Acts and Statutes and remedies that could be used and applied. Also highlights Accredited Employers setup and Accident Compensation Act 
 Please give generously to Number 8 WUNZ so we can continue our exceptionally high rate of employment problem resolution through settlements and case wins- This is our calling but need your help!! Go to our contact and joining page for bank details for donations - Thanks in advance - we greatly appreciate it!

Tonight Liz begins by framing the character by which covid scam was carried out. It was a con and a confidence trick.

Those that had confidence in her got tricked - devastatingly so We watch the JA clip about two kinds of people. She uses fear for part of the message but also comforting, cuddly messaging to those who were fearful which then normalised this type of messaging. JA speaks later on in that clip about CVCs - aimed at the bosses to scare them or comfort them that they were making the right choice forcing their workers to get the jab. They all had the choice to CVC or non-cvc. The gvt did not make them do it JA might be gone but her marketing has not been forgotten. “They” will never be allowed to forget what they did. We will not let them. 

 MoH website has been updated around the 4th of May to include a particular piece of propaganda which is legally untrue - 

Workplace infectious disease prevention "Minimising the spread of infectious diseases in the workplace is important to keeping staff safe and well at work." "What is required under the Health and Safety at Work Act?" "Any infectious disease encountered in the workplace is considered a workplace hazard….
" ……Actually NO !!#@!! that is misinformation. Only those diseases listed in Accident Compensation Act Schedule 2 are workplace infectious diseases Erika talks about comparison to 1930s Germany and that no one has died from any of the infectious diseases for a very long time. 
 Workplace diseases are NOT the Flu, Measles, chickenpox and so on. 

 JA clip from NZ Herald https://youtu.be/ZdMSRolWCyQ?si=TCmwG9IoI8BDetNr

MoH page of MISINFORMATION

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/workplace-infectious-disease-prevention?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2INhl2mAbrsd9D6LlE1yA5FtcRDNrtyDg78Sbdg0R_SOLTL5fiGj6sgqU_aem_ARWwFI6PRu_7NSsc_LBAlykl61_sbySt1yFhOHoNi-_8buqPAavi6hVKSpgGcp0hwyUXsRGEV-chb3Zhn0bpRMSf 

 Accident Compensation Act Schedule 2 
Page listing infectious diseases https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM105458.html#DLM105458 We can do something about this latest round of misinformation - in the Health and Safety at Work Act section 93 it says- Misrepresentation A person must not knowingly or recklessly make a false or misleading representation to another person about that other person’s—
 (a) rights or obligations under this Act; or (b) ability to initiate, or participate in, a process or proceedings under this Act; or (c) ability to make a complaint or an inquiry to a person or body empowered under this Act to seek compliance with this Act. We must hold them accountable for this highly damaging pure propaganda Finding out about TPP and the takeover by the “Crown” They are not sovereign. We are. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)  New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade https://www.mfat.govt.nz› trade › free-trade-agreements

 Nicolae Ceaușescu 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu We talk about what happened to this evil leader 
 Another super interesting conversation which continues on in to other interesting subjects.

In tonights zoom with Liz we take another in depth look in to:- C19 Vax orders clause 4 - Relevant PCBU and how this ties in to the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Liz reviews exemptions and exceptions and retrospective legislation Erika's OIAs - Isabella Alexander - a 17yr old healthy sportswoman died suddenly 10th Sept 2021 after getting the jab. The then PM Jabsinister went on TV on the Sunday after (2.5 days later) stating the death was not jab related. The Chief Coroner also said in the Herald on Monday 13th that the death was not jab related Erika put in an OIA asking about the dates of coroner inquest, pathologist report etc. Here are the dates: Postmortem - 11th Sept 2021 Pathologist findings released - 24th Sept 2021 Coroners findings - 7th Dec 2021 So how was JA and the so called "chief" coroner able to conclude with such confidence that Isabella's passing was not jab related? 
Check this OIA here - https://fyi.org.nz/request/26323/response/99870/attach/html/4/CAR%20111156%20response.pdf.html Erika also highlighted her OIA regarding the propagandised massive rise in hospital admissions that the PM said would happen and lockdown was necessary to "flatten the curve". Turns out there was no curve to flatten. Gee what a surprise…NOT! These criminals only know how to tell lies! This info come from - Annual Report 2021|22 Auckland District Health Board https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Annual-Report-2021-22-Auckland.pdf

Another super Number zoom! 

Please consider supporting Number 8 WUNZ by making a donation here - TSB account Number 8 Workers’ Union Inc 15-3968-0114433-00 

 Or being a paid member - even if you do not have an employment problem - think of it as a great insurance policy and you will also be supporting those that have current cases. 
 We are member and donation funded so need your help to build our member support team so we can take on even more cases
 We greatly appreciate your help!

In Tonight’s Episode 

 Rumble CEO Calls Out New Zealand Ministry of Health

 Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski received an email from NZ lawyers saying he should take down content Rumble from FreeNZ. This comes about from this idea that the MoH can order people about via their big shot lawyer Simpson and Grierson and the “Order” from the Employment Relations Authority (keyword Authority they are not a court) and Barry Young’s Whistle Blower data. These lawyers charge the big bucks and being publicly funded have an endless budget(in their minds)

 Mr Pavlovski talks about the Barry Young information had been put up on Rumble along with other platforms many of which got scared and took it down after the “Order” was made. 

 The union gets a lot of work with Simpson Grierson being the lawyers for the other side. They tout themselves as big commercial lawyers so it was interesting that they went to the ERA to get this order which came from a decision from now other than Shane Kinney, who we thave talked at length about on our zooms - He was the guy that told businesses to “Go hard” and they did not have to answer any questions from workers, when it came to implementing jabbing policies on their workers when he was working previously at MBIE.

Sue Greys OIA - 200 pages - much of which was redacted

Mr Kinley was shifted over to the ERA. 

 CEO Rumble says no to MoH. He says it’s absurd and it is a breach of our rights of free speech. He talks about the “Pentagon Papers”. Here is a fantastic link to this historical event - https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/first-domino-nixon-and-the-pentagon-papers and this is a good link https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/first-domino-nixon-and-the-pentagon-papers The result of this event was all about the Vietnam War and that people need to know what is happening in wars as public funds are being used to pay for it. Nixon and Watergate is related.

 Things that get forgotten:
 The Rule of Law
 The Seperation of Powers
 And that the “People” are Sovereign 

Dixon ordered the break in at the Pentagon. 

 The US Constitution is founded on the 1688 BOR. This is to stop Crown overreach. 1776 Revolution got rid of the Crown in the US but they still had the same set of laws which include 1688 BOR. 

 The separation of powers has gone haywire and the Courts need to fix it - Thats their job! 

 More interesting links:
 whistleblower.org
 https://x.com/joshwalkos/status/1782269254194155535?s=46
https://www.netflix.com/nz/title/81614419 
N8 zoom where we discuss Australian jab injured worker wins in Australian Courts https://rumble.com/v4b17p0-ep-106-n8-2nd-feb-2024-follow-the-money-and-jab-injured-finally-get-justice.html 
Australian Police case 
https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSC/2024/181.html 
There is so much incredible content in the Episode. A definite must watch. 

 Please support Number 8 by being a paid member - even if you do not have an employment problem - think of it as a great insurance policy and you will also be supporting those that have current cases. 
 You can also make a donation here - TSB account Number 8 Workers’ Union Inc 15-3968-0114433-00

Tonight with Liz - We take a look at the "Inherent Jurisdiction" of the ERA and other courts, how the ERA is a Creature of Statute and is bound by the law, ultra vires, can the ERA order compliance and who by? Is Liz Gunn an employee of Health NZ? Another fascinating discussion Here is Liz's notes from Friday night - Inherent jurisdiction is a doctrine of the English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The term is also used when a governmental institution derives its jurisdiction from a fundamental governing instrument such as a constitution. In the English case of Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd, Lord Diplock described the court's inherent jurisdiction as a general power to control its own procedure so as to prevent its being used to achieve injustice. Note that in New Zealand the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters relating to employment, functions are divided up between the Court and Authority. See sections 99, 100, the court and sections 133, 137 applying to the Authority. [13] It is a truism that the Authority is a creature of statute and that unlike the High Court, for instance, it possesses no inherent jurisdiction but has only that jurisdiction which is conferred on it by statute. [33] If, as the Union contends, the Board has misinterpreted its own functions (and in particular misinterpreted whatever obligation it might have pursuant to s9(1)(a) of the Racing Act 2003, then the decision to dismiss the second applicants may be unlawful. The Union notes that the Board is, like the Authority, a creature of statute and not a private employer and it can only do that which it is legally empowered to do. Insofar as it has gone further than the functions set out in its statute, and in particular, in the Union's submission, the function described and contained in s 9(1)(a) of the Racing Act 2003, then it has acted ultra vires its statute and potentially contributed to unjustified dismissals of the second applicants. 137 Power of Authority to order compliance (1) This section applies where any person has not observed or complied with— (a)any provision of— (i)any employment agreement; or (ii) Parts 1, 3 to 6, 6AB, 6A (except subpart 2), 6B, 6C, 6D, 7, and 9; or (iii) any terms of settlement or decision that section 151 provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (iiia) an enforceable undertaking that section 223C(1) provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (iiib) an improvement notice that section 223D(6) provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (iiic) any terms of a pay equity claim settlement under section 13ZH of the Equal Pay Act 1972; or (iv) a demand notice that section 225(4) provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (v) sections 73 and 74 of the Public Service Act 2020 and sections 597 and 600 of the Education and Training Act 2020; or (vi) sections 76 to 80 of the Public Service Act 2020 and sections 585 to 596 and 660 of the Education and Training Act 2020; or (vii) section 11(3)(c) of the Health and Disability Services Act 1993; or (viii) clauses 5 and 6 of Schedule 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1989; or (ix) sections 83, 83A, and 83B of the Fire Service Act 1975; or (x) clauses 18, 19, and 21 of Schedule 5 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; or (xi) Part 3 and sections 589 and 600 of the Education and Training Act 2020; or (xi)[Repealed] (xii)[Repealed] (b) any order, determination, direction, or requirement made or given under this Act by the Authority or a member or officer of the Authority. (c) any order, determination, direction, or requirement made or given under the Screen Industry Workers Act 2022 by the Authority or a member or an officer of the Authority. (2) Where this section applies, the Authority may, in addition to any other power it may exercise, by order require, in or in conjunction with any matter before the Authority under this Act to which that person is a party or in respect of which that person is a witness, that person to do any specified thing or to cease any specified activity, for the purpose of preventing further non-observance of or non-compliance with that provision, order, determination, direction, or requirement. (3) The Authority must specify a time within which the order is to be obeyed. (4) The following persons may take action against another person by applying to the Authority for an order of the kind described in subsection (2): (a) any person (being an employee, employer, union, or employer organisation) who alleges that that person has been affected by non-observance or non-compliance of the kind described in subsection (1).

Another awesome zoom with Liz - As always Liz showcases case law that are Number 8 Unions super weapons against the terrible wrong doings carried out on New Zealand's loyal hard working, employees. There was NEVER any wrong doing by employees when it comes to the COVID 19 sackings. The law is there to protect employees - it is so wrong that it is taking Number 8 to point this out to employers. They should have acted lawfully in the first place! A great watch!! Please share and tell your friends all about it! Number 8 relies on funding by it's members and donations. Please donate today and help us continue to get justice for New Zealand Workers!

Tonight Liz highlights some amazing case law which shows great promise for mandate termination cases. 

 Number 8 is approach 40 successful settlements and case wins. 

 For a small group that N8 is these are outstanding results! Number 8 was told we couldn’t do it. We wouldn’t win. Well we are over and over using the laws that are there to protect us. 

 Those that did not like the look of the jab from the get go were labelled selfish, tin hatter conspiracy theorist. Well we were and are continuing to be right! 

 Liz details a case Gilbert v Transflield 2013 https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2013-NZEmpC-71-Gilbert-v-Transfield-Services-NZ-Ltd.pdf
were an electrical worker was made redundant due to a new policy the company had implemented. 

 One of his allegations was he was selected for redundancy partly due to his union rep work. 

The main issue his lawyers put forward was that Mr Gilbert was not at fault. 

 ERA S4 A(1) - no fault situation as in the worker was not at fault for being made redundant and the employer is under an obligation to act a good faith to a larger extent due to the employee’s “No fault“ situation. Whether they were under the order or not Transfield used a “proprietary” form of psychological assessment for selecting employees from a third party contractor. They used this program as a tick the box situation so they could make people redundant as they saw fit. They were not allowed to find about how this “proprietary” worked due its secrecy. This meant the employer was not able to act in good faith in accordance with duty to act under Employment Relations Act. Where else have we heard of this situation with a secret proprietary product being used on employees? 

 This case is the case law we have been looking for! 
Employers in the public sector are also bond by the Public Services Act Section 73 which is an extra top up - Liz’s second case she will talk about Health and Safety Regulations

“Safe and Effective” - All new medicines must come through the Medicines Act and by that act cannot be warranted in any way. They were straight out lying about “safe and effective”. Medsafe itself told us in FACT that the effective part was no existent. The judge in the Gilbert case said that the employer acted irrationally and that it was not reasonable. Being reasonable means the employer must know what they are doing! Which is NOT using a secret psychological employee assessment tool OR an experiential, untested, untrialled, proprietary product that has huge side effects, questionable safety data and not long term study information!!! 

The judge told Mr Gilbert that not only were Transfield not telling him about the reasons for sacking - Transfield did not know the reasons for sacking him due to the proprietary information! 

 McAlister v Air New Zealand - Supreme Court Judgement. Watch the zoom to find out the gold here https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2009/sc-49-2008-david-mcalister-v-air-new-zealand-limited-civil-judgment.pdf 
Another fantastic zoom full of gems that so few lawyers or otherwise in this country are bothering to try and find or don’t have the skills to find!!!

This is a super important recording and for us that are interested in the New Zealand Constitution tonights episode is a must watch!
 Its all about power and where the power lies and how each branch exercises that power or doesn't exercise it. The three branches The 3 branches of government The Parliament - legislative - Supreme 
The Executive - this is the Crown The Judiciary - the Courts Tonights title is Parliament under siege. Parliament is the legislative branch and is supreme as it is the voice of the people through their ELECTED representatives. There is a problem at the base of our NZ Constitution in that we have UN-ELECTED MPs which are those on the Party List. They are not elected individually. We don’t know who they are, what they are up to or what their motivations are! Examples of this are Green MPs that have come in power off the Party List. 

 Liz takes us through MMP set up and how that originated. MMP brings coalition governments. Bring back First Past The Post which is majority rules

 Parliament under attack - Through two sources - the courts and the other is the executive The Crown, made up of the cabinet, the ministries and the Govern General who appoints the judges and a lot of powerful positions. GG also has the role of swearing and proroguing the Govt when they go off on their break. Liz suggests this is a very abused position. 

 Liz brings in the English Civil War and 1688 Bill Of Rights and how that came about. 
 Law was made by kings until 1649. Kings are not ELECTED by the people. They come into power purely based on their bloodlines. King Charles 1st committed treason against the people through huge taxation and misspending of public funds. He was tried and found guilty of Treason and executed on 30th Jan 1649. 

 There was an Act of Parliament in 1649 that made it unlawful and an Act of Treason to elect a Kind or Queen from that day forward. Find it here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp1263-1264

 Then came 10 years of the Interregnum. All of these cases are recorded in the Acts And Ordinances Of The Interregnum which you can find here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum?page=1 There were many changes made to English law. 
In 1660 the “Restoration” happened and it was not a success. This is when King Charles II, son of King Charles I, was bought in as King despite the Act of 1649 making it an Act of Treason. He then proceeded to repeat the same antics as his father. There was always a suspicion that King Charles II wold repeat the same treatment of non-catholics as did his father. 

 This is what gives us the preamble of 1688 Bill Of Rights, is part of our NZ Imperial Laws and our NZ Constitution. In 1688 William and Mary of Orange, who were cousins of the Stuart Kings, were bough in as “Constitutional” Monarchs only - and this is a very important distinction!! They are figureheads ONLY! The power is with the people!!! 

 The Queen In Right Of New Zealand is a company. This came about in NZ in 1986. This is the Crown - NOT parliament! The British Royals call themselves “The Firm” This is the Crown in the UK - Not the Parliament of the UK. There is push by the “Crown” corporation, which has become very very strong over the last 30-40years, to take the power away from the people and back to the crown. It would create a type of “Restoration” period again.

 Go back and watch Liz’s zoom on the treason documents here- as this is super relevant - https://rumble.com/v2v2gpw-ep-54-n8-the-results-of-the-treason-documents.html - Liz has been telling us about this stuff for ages!!!
These documents and accompanying videos show that the Executive Branch handed over the administration of NZ to an UNELECTED group. 
 KC lawyer Gary Judd article -https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/gary-judd-kc-on-judicial-imperialism 
He highlights the other attack which is from the courts in the form judges rulings that insist lawyers consider tikanga and apply it in all their cases whether it’s relevant or not! Tikanga are customs and beliefs not law. 

Liz highlights the case called Director General of Health v Wakameinanga Konehera Houora Health Council, Maori Government of NZ, a doctor and a dentist both part of NZDSOS and a couple of other people - case name and number DIRECTOR OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH v. WAKAMINENGA KAUNIHERA HAUORA CIV-2022-404-847 [2022] NZHC 1765. This shows links in to the unions. It shows link to the Nurses Union and how some people, health professionals have been lead up the garden path by WKH by them offering an alleged “superior jurisdiction” to practice their doctor and nursing skills. This was miss-information from the Crown corporation. On WKH website was statements by the Supreme Court from the Ellis case came the talk about tikanga and how lawyers in NZ should act. Thats not the role of the Supreme Court!! The Law Society added to this miss-information!! 

 A gold mine of cool stuff in this zoom with more following on from the notes above!!

Tonight - From the Children's Health Defence - "DOJ Asks Court to Toss Whistleblower Lawsuit Alleging Pfizer Defrauded U.S. Government "The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday asked to intervene in a lawsuit alleging Pfizer committed fraud during clinical trials for its COVID-19 vaccine. The DOJ also asked the court to dismiss whistleblower Brook Jackson’s lawsuit against Pfizer." In this rumble Liz takes us through an recent and ongoing US court case where the US Department of Justice has asked the court to dismiss the case in which Brook Jackson, a former employee of the Ventavia Research Group, an independent lab that conducted some of the clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTechCOVID-19vaccine, is suing Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON Pty another Pfizer contractor, alleging the companiescommitted numerous violationsof theFalse Claims Actduring the trials. This is a very relevant case for us here in NZ - We could potentially use this strategy with out Fair Trading Act. It also shows that the US DOJ should be helping with the case suing Pfizer not trying to get the case dismissed!! 

 Another amazing insight from our own N8 Liz!

Amanda Turner at the Nursing Council Profession Conduct Committee Tribunal. Amanda is a victim the same as Dr Matt Shelton and Dr Canaday. Victimised due to exercising her right to freedom of speech - In particular freedom of political speech - But Amanda was taking action much earlier than Dr Matt and Canaday. Amanda is a very modest person but was a absolute pioneer and a trooper for us all when it came to pushing back against the information coming out of the media and so forth when C19 first reared its ugly head. And also in the hearing. Such courage! She is truly a Patriot for this country and is firm on her beliefs and the Nursing Council took exception to that 

 Her case has been through the Employment Relations Authority(Not with N8) and Employment Court(with N8) and now being appealed to Court of Appeal to review the findings of the judge - in particular Right To Freedom of Political Speech. 

 Liz explains the background to Amanda’s case and how the Disciplinary Council should lawfully act as the acts are written. The question was how had Amanda cased harm to the public? Had she done this via her Facebook page? Had her conduct shown incompetence? Did her behaviour bring the Nursing Council or Medical council into disrepute? 

 The lawyer for the other side admitted he had no idea how fb worked and did not have an account and yet he was there to act for the Nursing Council at Amanda’s hearing. The law is not the problem - it is the lawyers. Too busy looking at their bank balance but not focusing on justice 

 The tribunal big wigs have become very used to being top dogs. 
 What does this have to do with the Tom Cruise movie from 2002? It’s the notion that someone can be guilty before they have actually carried out wrong doing and what a huge can of worms that is. The movie does a good job of bringing our attention to this subject and that it is already “a thing” with lowering of speed limits, excessive amounts of judder bars and the Govt thinking they need to tell us how to healthy. NOT!!!

 Once again another must watch for kiwis wanting to learn the truth of what is happening in tribunals such as the Nurses Disciplinary Tribunal

From the zoom LAWYER SPEAK "The Vaccinations Order was made by the Minister for COVID-19 Response under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. While the Ministry provided advice to the government on the drafting of the Vaccinations Order (and later, on its administration), the decision about whether to implement the Vaccinations Order was not one the Ministry was able to, or did, make. The Ministry was involved with the development of advice about vaccination and PCBUs' obligations under the Vaccinations Order, including public advice available through government websites. Employers were not directed through this advice, or otherwise, to apply a particular employment outcome if a person did not get vaccinated. The Ministry did not have any role in how employers chose to implement or comply with the Vaccinations Order. This was a matter for employees and employers to work through, considering their specific operational arrangements and what could be accommodated. Liz takes us through so much in this zoom - A definite must watch!!!

Liz starts tonights zoom off with a legal definition of - JUSTIFICATION. What is a Tort? Liz goes on to explain the definition and how it is relevant to lodging Personal Grievances and 103(1) (A) of Employment Relations Act - Test of Justification in Unjustified dismissal and 103(1)(B) is Disadvantage in the course of employment. N8 is having wins using these and continues to use them. This gives sacked workers 3 years to take an employment action against their bosses or ex bosses. The above section states “The question of wether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined on an objective basis by applying the test in subsection 2. The test is whether the employer’s actions and how the employer acted were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.
 
Liz continues on to explain how the above and the rest of this section has great significance. 

What is legally “objective” and “justifiable”? If this is not looked from a legal perspective then its “subjective”

Employers and lawyers are getting tripped up with this. Liz further explores the recent Defence Force ruling a week after the ruling came out. Super interesting. Members of the defence Force can sue the crown. This happened in the Yardley decision. The recent case is different. They never looked at the HSWA which applies to the Armed Forces which does apply when they are in NZ. Liz takes us through Armed Forces Discipline Act and how this all ties together OIAs - more gold dust from these! 
https://fyi.org.nz/request/25517-payments-for-covid-related-illnesses-to-your-workers-at-the-ministry-of-health#incoming-96875

https://rumble.com/v4esc4t-lily-nightingale-oia-request.html 
https://mega.nz/file/66QBXSQI#-oMp7kenmA80Humd7feQ1meE8wuH1pqH-vOFOzwOX-I https://www.facebook.com/erika.whittome/posts/pfbid0f7HbJzapGCLtEaiY21rwTNZM1R4uLXJ9QvQsqsVTwGdaX77WTSsNzKm6sj58DYVrl 

Insane Govt overspending https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/danyl-mclauchlan-unjarndycing-the-state 
Plus so much more! TIMELINE, SHOWNOTES & CONTENT LINKS TIMELINE Section 1 – 00:00:00 - The legal definition of justification is a legally sufficient reason or cause for an act that would otherwise be criminal or tortious - grounds for a lawsuit. - A personal grievance (PG) in employment law is based on a tort or breach of contract. Tort means a harm against another person or their property. - Tort cases are civil matters, tried in the same courts as criminal cases like district or high court. - The discussion focuses on section 103A of the Employment Relations Act regarding unjustified dismissal or disadvantage during employment. This is relevant to the later discussion on NZDF case. - Section 103A lays out an objective test for determining if a dismissal or disadvantageous action by the employer was justifiable based on what a reasonable employer would do in the circumstances. - The speaker argues dismissals and actions by employers like vaccine mandates must have a legitimate reason to be considered justifiable rather than subjective under the law. - The Basher case talks about the employers advantage with resources. - They discuss how this section impacts other employment cases arguing justification before the authority or courts. Section 2 – 00:09:00 - The discussion focuses on the NZ Defence Force (NZDF) vaccine mandate case ruled on by the High Court. It found the mandate inconsistent with various laws including the Bill of Rights Act. - The NZDF is constituted under the Defence Act (DA) 1990 and bound by NZ laws. Members can enforce their rights against the Crown via the Bill of Rights Act. - The Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) covers the NZDF and they must promote health and safety even during training. The NZDF has been sued by WorkSafe before over accidents. - Noting section 7 subsection 9 - In commanding the New Zealand Defence Force, the Chief of Defence Force must take into account the need to promote the purpose of this Act to the greatest extent consistent with maintaining the defence of New Zealand. So, NZDF not only must abide, but promote the Act. - Sections of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 were mentioned in relation to orders and health endangerment. Section 39 & 72. - Liz discusses the NZDF ruling establishes that orders must be lawful under the Bill of Rights Act. This impacts other cases relating to vaccine mandates. - While the Bill of Rights Act doesn't provide remedies, the Health and Safety at Work Act could be used to argue adverse conduct from mandates. - They have their own military courts, the Court Martial of New Zealand, therefore don’t use the employment courts. Section 45 (5) Defence Act 1990 - Nothing in the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies to the conditions of service of members of the Armed Forces. Section 45 (3) & (4) remuneration – under contract of service. Temporary defence force order. - Implications of the ruling for ongoing NZDF compliance and its relevance for other appeals were discussed. Re those under the orders, how they were enforced. The summary focused on the key legal points. Importance of section 72 DA 1990 Endangering the health of members of the Armed Forces. NZDF and public service commission. 00:27:00 - Employment relations Act binds the crown, as all acts do. Contract for services v contract of services. Unwritten contracts. - Summing up the NZDF case and recommendation to use the HSWA. Liz explains how employment agreements can use NZBORA. Section 3 – 00:34:00 - The section focuses on analysing Ministry of Health worker data obtained through OIA requests related to COVID policies and their impact. - An should be done OIA could ask if politicians/judges received exemptions, it’s suggested they may have. - Erika discusses more OIA’s. Another OIA asked how many Ministry of Health workers claimed ACC (accredited employer) for long COVID effects. The response was none. - 615 Ministry staff took "discretionary" COVID leave from March 2020-January 2023. Over 10% of estimated 5000 staff. Could take sick days to attend vaccination or recover from side effects from vaccination. - It's suggested sick leave before/after 2020 should be compared. Accrued leave amounts were also mentioned. - HR data on sick leave days/rates is tracked, unlike vaccine status. Follow-up OIAs are proposed on total sick leave days for the 615 workers. - Anecdotes shared about workers reporting illness after vaccination. Staff growth was prevalent in government agencies, OIA required. OIA sleuthing requested. Section 4 – 00:48:00 - This section focuses on the OIA requests, vaccine side effects report, informed consent issues and legal implications of the Pfizer indemnity provided. - The discussion refers to an OIA request made by Dr. Lily Nightingale to the Ministry of Health about COVID vaccine side effects. Interview with Liz Gunn. - The OIA included 7 questions and the responses referred to other people's OIAs, requiring collating multiple responses. - The Pfizer post-marketing report released by a US court order contained around 1200 different diagnoses of side effects. - Informed consent questions were raised about whether consent was truly informed without knowledge of the full side effects report. - Mention of leaked vaccination data identifying around 12,000 vaccinators, though this was questioned as individual vaccinators were not directly paid. Lump sum for facilities? Companies registry. - Have they changed Barry Youngs charge? From stealing to leaking. - Discussion of Gazette publications formerly identifying tuberculosis vaccinators and why this stopped. - Details from the New Zealand Parliament handbook around Minister Grant Robertson declaring an indemnity to Pfizer over $10 million as required by law. Hansard – parliamentary reports. 21 Oct 2021. Grant Robinson now the chancellor of Otago University - Questions raised about the scope of this indemnity and implications for potential future liability claims. Section 5 – 01:04:00 OPEN CHAT - This section focuses on monitoring of online content, updates on Barry Young's case, critique of wasteful government spending patterns, and disincentives for efficient small government. - The discussion starts about Bill Gates' father being involved in eugenics and how Gates Foundation now funds the WHO. - Discussion if government agencies like the police monitor people who share certain content on Facebook that gets flagged/banned. -Damian. D. investigation into university of Auckland. - Mention of US media dominance in covering events like the Super Bowl in New Zealand. - Brief discussion about a Russian IP address attempting to access someone's computer. - Updates on Barry Young's recent court appearances regarding leaked health data. Suggestion he should pursue whistleblower protections. - Discussion of an article about wasteful government spending on projects like Let's Get Wellington Moving, with hundreds of millions spent on consultants rather than infrastructure. - Analysis that governments have incentives to continue wasteful spending patterns since they face no bankruptcy risk from taxpayer funding. - The story of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Bleak House by Charles Dickens – fee’s eaten up by lawyers - Comments about lack of incentive for small/efficient government given current large taxation and policies that enable profitable public sector bureaucracy. - A group called A Private Agenda CONTENT LINKS Section 1 ERIKA WHITTOME: General Secretary of the Number 8 Workers' Union: On How the New Unions Are Changing the Landscape https://realitycheck.radio/erika-whittome-general-secretary-of-the-number-8-workers-union-on-how-the-new-unions-are-changing-the-landscape/ S. 103A Test of justification - Employment Relations Act 2000 (1) For the purposes of section 103(1)(a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by applying the test in subsection(2). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM60327.html FOUR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES v CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE [2024] NZCA 17 [16 February 2024 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZCA-17.pdf Bill of Rights Act 1990 (New Zealand) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html Defence Act 1990 (New Zealand) Section 45(3) requires the Chief of Defence Force consult with the Public Service Commission on wages. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0028/latest/whole.html#DLM206071 Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 – see section 72 - Endangering the health of members of the Armed Forces https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1971/0053/latest/whole.html Section 7 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 - Application of Act to Armed Forces https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/whole.html#DLM5976671 Erika OIA - Payments for covid related illnesses to your workers at the Ministry of Health https://fyi.org.nz/request/25517-payments-for-covid-related-illnesses-to-your-workers-at-the-ministry-of-health#incoming-96875 Lily Nightingale OIA interview with Liz Gunn https://rumble.com/v4esc4t-lily-nightingale-oia-request.html OIA Pfizer side effects https://mega.nz/file/66QBXSQI#-oMp7kenmA80Humd7feQ1meE8wuH1pqH-vOFOzwOX-I Insane Govt overspending https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/danyl-mclauchlan-unjarndycing-the-state Hastings truck driver who refused Covid jab gets $29,000 payout for wrongful dismissal https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/hastings-truck-driver-who-refused-covid-jab-gets-29000-payout-for-wrongful-dismissal/3QG5LXXYI5HPFMJBWXH3HMX23E/ Jarndyce and Jarndyce (or Jarndyce v Jarndyce) is a fictional probate case in Bleak House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce Multi choice quiz: https://poe.com/s/FfWdMsZm7758ie7dqbWW

Liz takes through the '1400' OIA and as example of how we can dig in to the gvts own records, in this case and OIA which shows the vast majority of pharmacies, marae, jab clinics, medical practices and how many jab doses were delivered to them which was then combined with what we know they got paid per dose for administration of the jabs. SOOO much money was made by these places.... One group in particular allow their car park to be used to make $1.72M by pushing what we now know in so many cases is a poison. By combining this data Intellectual Property is created. Liz also chats about a number of other great subjects - all great learnings for us TIMELINE, SHOWNOTES & CONTENT LINKS Section 1 – 00:00:00 - Intro to zoom topic which aims to teach legal detective work from the comfort of your armchair - 00:02:35 Brief discussion about the just released Court of Appeal case, FOUR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES v CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE [2024] NZCA 17 [16 February 2024] re COVID-19 vaccination mandate & s. 191 & s. 36 HSWA relevance. See Ep. 109 for Liz’s summary - Administrative law aka crown in commonwealth and the administration in the U.S - Brief on Shepherd SA case - Lawyers Matthew Hague from Frontline Law represented the appellants. - The discussion touches on the legal aspects around authority, health and safety law, and how long these cases take to make their way through the appeals process. Section 2 – 00:16:31 - The discussion is about appealing authority cases related to COVID-19 mandates to the Employment Court. Arguments will include violations of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. - Section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act is cited in relation to whether CEOs like the Chief of Defence Force had proper authority to issue vaccination mandates. - The discussion shifts to the topic of how ordinary people can investigate and expose corruption through Official Information Act requests and open-source research. - Examples are given of analysing vaccination data to estimate profits made through public-private partnerships during New Zealand's vaccination program. - Looking up company directors and interests on the New Zealand Companies Office website is suggested as a way for people to research local clinics and organizations involved in the vaccine rollout. - Sending OIA requests to investigate potential conflicts of interest of officials/organizations is presented as a form of "gumshoe" or private detective work citizens can do from their own computers. - The goal is to shift public narratives by bringing transparency around financial interests and proper legal authority regarding COVID-19 policies and mandates. Section 3 – 00:29:57 - The discussion focuses on the website FYI.org.nz, which publishes Official Information Act (OIA) requests and allows users to comment and tag requests. This is presented as a resource to research topics and potentially spur further OIA questions. - Erika analysed the vaccination data from the T. Lee OIA response to estimate financial figures. Her reworking of the data could be considered intellectual property, a property right under copyright law. NZ Copyright Act 1994. - Raw data itself is usually not copyrightable, but substantial analysis or presentation that requires skill/labor could be an original work. - Barry Young, who used health data in charts, arguably created new intellectual property from that data. Copyright and the tension between work product and personal intellectual property is discussed. - OIA data itself is considered public information, but substantial new analysis or presentation of that data could potentially be copyrighted as a new original work. - Intellectual property includes things like books, manuals, theses, which can be copyrighted if they are original works of authorship. - However, one needs to be careful not to plagiarize or steal the intellectual property of others. - There is sometimes a tension between work created as part of employment, versus personal intellectual property. Substantial independent work may merit protection. - Liz sums up her message on sleuthing. - Overall citizen-led research and use of OIA data is presented as a way for people to investigate topics, change narratives and potentially spur new OIA requests or legal cases. Section 4 – 00:38:50 - Two employment mediations were successfully resolved this week. The Wayne Basher truck driver case is mentioned, which is a N8 case. It’s noted there was incorrect reporting by Epoch Times that he breached his contract by not getting vaccinated. - Touching on the case of midwife and previous N8 guest Irene. - A comment is made about hospitals struggling to find staff and begging nurses to return, suggesting overreliance on overseas labor and lack of English language skills in some cases for jobs interacting with patients. Another visa category discovered. - A "settlers party" is being planned for mid-year to celebrate cases settled in mediation and ERAs. Attendees would need to come in masks to maintain confidentiality. OPEN CHAT - Brief discussion of the 1971 film Gumshoe, which someone had happened upon in looking up the term. - It's noted the Wayne Basher truck driver case should be findable on the ERA website now under his name and company Big Chill. - Big Chill/Freightways is an accredited employer through ACC, meaning they stand in ACC's shoes for any work injuries. Suggested ex-employees could look at pursuing the company directly in court. So join the union. - An article is mentioned about a local Māori trustee group and concerns raised about potential financial interests in promoting vaccinations in the community. Encourages to look at the company registers - DHBs are also noted to be accredited ACC employers, meaning injuries from their actions could potentially be pursued through them as well. Also have professional indemnity insurance. CONTENT LINKS FOUR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES v CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE [2024] NZCA 17 [16 February 2024 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZCA-17.pdf Gumshoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumshoe_System https://pelgranepress.com/2023/03/08/a-taxonomy-of-investigations/ Section 191 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 - Designated agencies https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977182.html 13897 Official Information requests found https://fyi.org.nz/list/successful Copyright Act 1994 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html Hastings truck driver who refused Covid jab gets $29,000 payout for wrongful dismissal https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/hastings-truck-driver-who-refused-covid-jab-gets-29000-payout-for-wrongful-dismissal/3QG5LXXYI5HPFMJBWXH3HMX23E/

In this zoom - Liz takes us for a fascinating deep dive in to one our N8 super duper OIAs related to Section 191 of HSWA. This OIA clearly shows that most gvt agencies had no designation under section 191 to carry out any C19 mandates, enforcement lockdowns etc. 
Staggering!
 N8 seems to the lone voice in the wilderness with this! Most other legal (so called) professionals are asleep at the wheel. 


 We also take a lot at two other OIAs which have been bought together on a spreadsheet to show the names of jab administrators such as medical clinics, pharmacies, marae, jab buses and so on and the dollars per jab they have been paid for dishing out the poison. 
The figures are nuts - tens of thousands to millions. Oh how money hungry these people are! They are in the firing line big time now with the outcome of the recent Australian case “Shepherd v The State of South Australia in right of Child Protect” where a worker injured by the poison has won his case against his employer as his jab injury is a workplace injury - This has blown the door wide open for court cases all over the world!


please support Number 8 by being a paid member - even if you do not have an employment problem - think of it as a great insurance policy and you will also be supporting those that have current cases. 
 You can also make a donation here - TSB account Number 8 Workers’ Union Inc 15-3968-0114433-00


 Thanks so much! TIMELINE, SHOWNOTES & CONTENT LINKS Section 1 – 00:00:00 - Intro and explanation of the title “Puppet Strings become Visible” and ultra vires actions of the employers. - Summarising Butler v Shepherd, the employment case from 2011 where employee/Butler sued the University of Auckland (crown agent)over workplace issues and complaints. Butler decided to take the case to the High court rather than the employment authority. - Butler also argued his right to freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights Act was violated. - The court ruled that an employment contract is not considered a "function" under section 3B of the BORA, so employees cannot use BORA arguments in employment cases. Additionally his judicial reviews were struck out. - This ruling was cited in later cases like Turner to block employees from using BORA rights. - Overview of the case Liz is arguing in a current Court of Appeal case that employers do have a "duty" to be a good employer, which could be considered a function under the BORA. This duty has never been properly tested. - Discussion on the relevance of the Mighty River Power case. The Mighty River Power case involved a union contract incorporating section 11 of Bill of Rights (expressed term). The court recognised this could apply in employment contracts, but in the end they didn’t win and that was justified under Section 5. - If successful, it would allow public sector employees to argue violations of their BORA rights in employment disputes, as the Public Service Act also references rights under the BORA. Section 22 PSA 2020 Rights and freedoms of public service employees. - Practice developing the BORA duty arguments as the Union awaits the Court of Appeal's decision on whether to fully hear the Turner case. Leave to appeal stage but will find out in March. Section 2 – 00:13:49 - The Bill of Rights Act is seen as New Zealand's key constitutional law that outlines citizens' rights and sets standards for how government should operate. - The BORA places limits on the executive, courts and Parliament to prevent them overstepping individual rights. It’s their set of rules!! Recent government actions may have breached these rights. - Boxes (bound authority) and strings (legislation) example. - Section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (string) allows some agencies to take on powers usually held by WorkSafe NZ as the regulator. - An Sept 2023 OIA request by Erika revealed several agencies had Section 191 designations extending their regulatory powers, including Maritime NZ and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). - View the OIA and Gazette designation notices provided/not provided by MBIE OIA response https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2016-go958 - The CAA's 2015 designation covered the aviation sector except military flights. It granted all of WorkSafe's functions and powers regarding aircraft workplaces. Kirsten Hewlitt CEO was the CAA authority person designated for granting 12A exemptions. - Issues were raised that the CAA purported to exercise oversight beyond just aircraft workplaces as defined, overstepping its designated authority. - Proper designations that clearly define an agency's extended powers and scope are important constitutional 'strings' that empower agencies to take certain actions. an important legal precedent. Section 3 – 00:29:24 - The discussion questions whether agencies like Maritime NZ and the Civil Aviation Authority properly acted within their designated powers under Section 191 of the HSWA when enforcing COVID measures. Listen to Erika’s nail file and gasoline explanation as to the powers of CAA under the HSWA 2015. - An agency's powers are defined by legislation/statutory instruments and going beyond this scope would be considered "ultra vires" or outside their lawful authority. - The CAA's 2016 designation only applied to aviation workplaces like aircraft, not the broader ports and airport areas they purported to regulate. - Similarly, Maritime NZ's 2016 designation was limited to ships and work on board ships, not ports. However they have updated the designation 2023 to include ports, which is too late for them as it doesn’t work retrospectively https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2023-go3992 - How the Shepherd v The state of South Australia (In Right of the Department For Child Protection) determination is relevant in NZ re vax injury being a workplace injury. Reference to why the section 83 notices were given to bosses initially. - Issues are raised about businesses like Foodstuffs requiring vaccinations still. As accredited employers under the ACC scheme, it could create workplace injury liabilities. This could dissuade their woke agenda. Liz to go for a declaration from the employment court about employers being unable to request vax status in advertising for jobs. - Austin v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 88 - Employer duties of care case example discussed. Silver Fern Farms Ltd (SFFL) were accredited employers. Judge allowed late PG submission due to SFFL’s conduct in persuading the withdrawal of the work injury claim and subsequent treatment of the plaintiff. - A “mock” infringement notice from the Ministry of Health is discussed, citing the non-existent "Fish Acts 1996" implying they lacked proper enforcement powers. MOH as controlling third party. - References are made to relevant case law establishing employers' duties of care and that COVID could constitute a workplace hazard in some contexts. - See the transcript document titled “COVID-19 RESPONSE VACCINATIONS LEGISLATIONBILL 3rd reading” and discussion that the government has to get the empowering provisions right in order to fine people. - An OIA was submitted questioning the Ministry of Health's issuance of fines and designation as a regulator under Section 191. Awaiting response…following the money!!! Section 4 – 00:50:05 - An Excel spreadsheet is shown containing data from an OIA response, listing locations that received COVID vaccine doses from July 2020 along with the number of doses and estimated payment amount assuming $36.05 per dose. Receipt and Dispatch Data - OIA CRM0401037 July 2023 - Over 1400 locations are listed, with some receiving thousands or tens of thousands of doses. Total doses received were over 13 million, equating to an estimated $484 million in payments. - Examples are discussed of payments made to specific pharmacies and medical centres around New Zealand based on the number of doses they received. - Concerns are raised that locations may not have had adequate trained staff to administer vaccines but hired temporary workers for the financial incentive. - An example is given of a mobile vaccinator allegedly providing just 30 minutes training before administering vaccines to school children for $50 each, without proper oversight. - It is suggested the data obtained could potentially identify problems and be used to investigate improper administration of vaccines for financial gain. - The large sums of public money involved in the vaccine rollout are criticized as "blood money" given associated health issues. Further transparency around payments is called for. Section 5 – 01:05:15 OPEN CHAT - Further discussion on which pharmacies made bank and ability to track batch numbers. Barry Young’s data is discussed re death stats. - Accredited employers under ACC stand in for ACC and take on risks/liabilities for workplace injuries but pay discounted levies. They bear full responsibility for injuries/costs. - An example is discussed of a worker seriously injured on the job who is being denied proper compensation and medical care by the employer's private insurer, despite obvious fault. Suggestions are made that the union-provided lawyer may be compromised and not properly advocating for the injured worker. - The courts can review disadvantage and contract breach against accredited employers, even if insurance matters go to District Court. Reference to the $2M court case (Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville High School) - Freezing work carries risks and serious injuries could occur, though intentional self-harm for insurance payouts is doubted. - Life insurers may deny claims if injuries arise from voluntary medical interventions like vaccines. - Many open legal issues remain around liability, compensation and oversight of accredited employers taking on injury risks. The situation is still developing in a "Wild West" environment. Section 6 – 01:21:26 OPEN CHAT - Conversations are discussed between unions and the World Economic Forum looking to control stakeholders like unions. Video evidence exists of this cooperation. - Farmers across Europe are protesting major cuts to farming being pushed by the WEF using climate change as an excuse. They are blockading cities with thousands of tractors. - The protests are being heavily suppressed in mainstream media coverage according to alternative sources. - Putin is described as an intelligent former KGB agent, and his interview with Tucker Carlson discussing Russia and the oligarchs is recommended viewing. - Under Soviet rule, state factories and assets were privatized and stripped, which Putin opposed and took action against the oligarchs involved. - Submissions are being sought by the Royal Commission investigating the government's COVID response. The union is still deciding whether to make a submission focused on rule of law issues. - Maintaining the rule of law principle is important to prevent unjust overreach of power by governing bodies beyond their proper authority. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak https://nz.vlex.com/vid/jesse-waiariki-temanava-butler-793537537 Electrical Union 2001 Incorporated, Dean Gregory Cowell V And Mighty River Power Limited https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/20 13-NZEmpC-197-Electrial-Union-2001-Inc-and-Anor-v-Mighty-River-Pow.pdf Section 3 (b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224799.html Public Service Act 2020 (New Zealand) - Section 22 (1) Rights and freedoms of public service employees (1) This section acknowledges that public service employees have all the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in accordance with the provisions of that A https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/LMS356882.html Section 2 Health and Safety at Work (Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand) Agency Designation 2015 https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2016-go958 Health and Safety at Work (Maritime New Zealand) Agency Designation 2015 https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2016-go957 Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department for Child Protection) [2024] SAET 2 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html Stuart Clive Austin v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 88 - Employer duties of care case example https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2014-NZEmpC-30-Austin-v-Silver-Fern-Farms-Ltd.pdf Erika’s OIA re MOH fines https://fyi.org.nz/request/25596-fines-you-have-issued-under-covid-and-s191-designation-under-hswa#incoming-95954 Receipt and Dispatch Data - OIA CRM0401037 July 2023 https://number8.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Receipt-and-Dispatch-Data-OIA-21339-CRM0401037-Summary-3.pdf 2023 NZEmpC 144 Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville A recent employment court case awarding over $1.79 million in damages is discussed as potentially relevant for breach of contract claims. Pecuniary loss. https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/ Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-144-Cronin-Lampe-v-Board-of-Trustees-of-Melville-High-School.pdf See damages/remedies https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-221-Cronin-Lampe-v-BoT-of-Melville-High-School-No-2.pdf Ep 104 N8 Fri 19th Jan 2024 C19 IS NOT a Workplace Hazard & ACC the door to vax injrd claims https://rumble.com/v483pht-ep-104-n8-fri-19th-jan-2023-c19-is-not-a-workplace-hazard-and-acc-the-door-.html Quiz 107 - https://poe.com/s/cjrjkhm312lIoNsfKMsg

Wow this was another fantastic lesson in law from Liz! 

 Through an OIA (not us this time but thanks to that clever person!) we have been able access the data from a document “Receipts and Dispatches” for all the jabs. This document shows us that thousands of providers were paid $36 per shot at no cost to themselves and there were around 8 million shots. 

This new OIA shows data from the same source. It shows there was an income estimated to be around $486 million just for the administration of the shots. 
Barry Young put data together from this same source (using his own IP as how to go about this Liz added) which showed the dramatic uptick in the number of deaths from the time of the Chch mask tooting as a place to start. His data also showed who gave the shots - pharmacies etc and attributed the number of deaths to each jabber. If you have not seen our Whistle Blower Rumbles I would recommend watching. They are viewer favourites! 

 As a side note, Barry’s data shows how money hungry some of the pharmacies were and their death statics reflect this and that the South Island was targeted big time with “bad batches”.

 Churches, Marae, jabathons, Rainbows End, Jab Buses, workplaces, school all took part in this directly or indirectly… 

 Australian case Shepard v The State of South Australia In Right of the Department of Child Protection decided on 15th Jan 2024 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html?fbclid=IwAR1P-K_eO3roVxLj4ipD6L2a-2nEmbMjzJkc2u-sjIUMS0_EoVCDk-1DDmM 

 In this case a worker had a serious adverse event after his third shot. The judge found in the workers favour to receive compensation from his employer who was the State.

 Liz takes us through the case which is super interesting and shows great promise for our New Zealand jab injured. 

 One of the standout messages in this case is that it shows that the State in Australia used primary legislation for C19 and they still lost this case! Here in NZ much of our C19 legislation was secondary so we potentially have something big ready to happen! 

 The worker was injured in the course of his employment as are so many of NZ jabbed injured

Liz reveals more very relevant details of this case and how these apply to New Zealand plus we look at parts of the Accident Compensation Act 2011 that are related to this case

 A must watch! TIMELINE & SHOW NOTES Section 1 – 00:00:00 - Starting with discussion on a document from an OIA request listing COVID vaccine providers in New Zealand and how much they were paid per shot administered (estimated $36 per shot). - Over 8 million shots were administered out of 12 million purchased, with around 4-5 million people eligible. This suggests they planned for 3 shots per eligible person. - Barry Young previously analysed data showing correlations between vaccine batches and increased deaths within 3 months. - The new document names all the pharmacies, clinics, etc. that provided vaccines and estimates total payout of $486 million just for administration. - However, District Health Boards who organized mass vaccination events are not listed, so the total payout is likely higher. - Liz will discuss how this data connects to a legal case from Australia called Shepherd that is very relevant. Section 2 – 00:07:50 - Discussion around the case of Shepherd v The state of South Australia (In Right of the Department For Child Protection) which was decided 15 Jan 2024. Focuses on implications of the Shepherd case in establishing precedent that workers can seek compensation if they experience adverse effects from mandated vaccination. - DCP equivalent is Oranga Tamariki. The facts were he was a child and youth support worker and worked for Baptist Care SA that had a sub contract with the DCP. - Covid-19 PHRA 2020 (secondary legislation) is equivalent to Emergency Management Act 2004 SA (primary legislation.) Equivalent order in SA is called a “direction”. *Spoiler: The state is beat even when using primary legislation. Two directions were made under section 25 of the EMA. - Mr. Shepherd experienced chest pains after his first two COVID vaccine doses and did not want to get the booster. After the booster he experienced severe chest pains. He struggled with chest pain and fatigue for months after. - Key details of Mr. Shepherd's medical history, symptoms and the communications pressuring him to get vaccinated are summarized. - The case establishes that employees required to get vaccinated by public health orders/directions can seek compensation from employers if they experience adverse effects. - This has implications for challenges to vaccine mandates and orders in New Zealand by establishing precedent that workers can be compensated. - The defense counsel Mr Garnaut attempted to argue Mr. Shepherd misconstrued the communications but the case ultimately found in his favour, setting an important legal precedent. Section 3 – 00:19:00 - Liz discusses the case and legal basis for vaccine mandates in Australia under the Emergency Management Act and connections to New Zealand's legislation. - Liz recommends taking note of paragraphs 33, 34, 35 and 37. Liz schools on interpreting acts and their interactions. Note Section 5 of the EMA. - Referencing sections 14 and 23 of the EM Act related to declaring emergencies and giving authorities special powers during emergencies. NZ’s emergency management part ended June 8th 2020 and were then on notices under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006. See past zoom re EPA 2006. - The judgment notes that the SA Emergency Management Act incorporated a section from their Health Act providing immunity from liability for actions taken in good faith. - A similar "freedom from liability" clause was incorporated into New Zealand's. The 2020 COVID PHRA Section 34 references the protection in Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 for legal liability for actions taken under health legislation/orders. - This provides immunity for public servants and those implementing legislation/orders as long as they act in good faith and not recklessly. - Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Act 2021 mentioned. The act expressly amended nine Acts but does not refer to the RTW Act. - However, Liz points out that later in the judgment, the state is still found to be liable despite these immunity provisions. - An important point is made that the objectives of New Zealand's COVID-19 Response Act did not actually include vaccination, yet vaccinations were mandated under it. - This implies the immunity provisions may not apply since vaccination was not within the intended scope and objectives of the Act as passed by Parliament. - The importance of comprehending the “Objects” of an act. - The judgement analyses whether the worker's injuries arose from his employment or the vaccine mandate directives. This determines if he can claim compensation. - The state argued the injuries arose from the directives not employment but the judge considered previous cases and ultimately found it was related to employment. - This establishes precedent that injuries from mandated vaccination can be considered work-related and eligible for compensation through workers' compensation law. - Bjekic v State of New South Wales: Court of Appeals case cited. Section 4 – 00:30:18 - The judgement discusses and distinguishes previous cases like Dawking v Secretary regarding when injuries from anticipated health orders can be considered work-related. - References Roberts v Comcare, where a worker sustained mosquito bites at employer-provided accommodation and the injury was still considered work-related. - The judgement analyses the bifurcated causal criteria in Section 7 of the Return to Work Act - that the injury can arise either out of or in the course of employment. - It is found that Mr. Shepherd's injury directly resulted from the vaccine mandate direction and his employment, as he would not have gotten the third dose otherwise. - The state argues the Emergency Management Act protects it from liability for vaccine directions. - However, the judgement cites several administrative law cases establishing that statutory powers must be reasonably exercised with regard to individual rights. - It discusses the importance of legislative intent when interpreting laws that interfere with fundamental rights/freedoms. - Mentions and analysis of: #41.Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education): NSW case finding anticipated health order caused compensable injury #51. Puntoriero v Westside Concrete Pty Ltd: WA case establishing poisoning of farm water was unlawful. #52. Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board v O.K. Elliott Ltd: Establishes statutory powers must consider individual rights. #53. Coco v The Queen: [1994] HCA 15): High Court of Australia case on interpreting laws that modify rights/privileges. #54. Deane and Dawson JJ: Their substantial agreement with Coco v The Queen. Section 5 – 00:43:12 - The judgement discusses a previous NZ employment case where workers were denied pay for not getting vaccinated, which was found unjust by the court. CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Limited - While the defense argued pandemic laws require more leniency, the judge found workers' compensation liabilities are well understood and injuries foreseeable. - The EM Act would need to expressly exclude liability for mandated vaccine injuries, which it did not. - Employees can claim compensation for work-related COVID, so this injury from a mandated vaccine should also be compensable. - Private sector workers required to vaccinate by employers can also claim compensation. - The judgement orders the claimant receive weekly income support and medical payments. - This establishes a precedent that injuries from mandated vaccination in employment contexts can be claimed through workers' compensation. - Liz discusses that injured individuals in NZ should pursue compensation claims against employers and the state using this legal basis and precedent. - References pursuing claims through the Employment Court and ACC in NZ: Would rely on provisions in the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 6 – 00:55:43 - The discussion analysing key sections of New Zealand's Accident Compensation Act relating to what qualifies as a work-related injury or accident. - Section 6 on interpretation and Section 25 on psychological/psychiatric injuries from events like attempted suicide are referenced. - Liz argues vaccination injuries could satisfy the criteria of a "specific event" involving external "force" or "resistance" like a needle injection. - Precedent cases establishing compensation for mosquito-borne illnesses are discussed as analogous to vaccine reactions. - Private sector workers required to vaccinate by employers would likely still be able to claim compensation per the Australian judgment. - Implications of pursuing long COVID or other vaccine injury claims as work-related diseases through ACC are discussed. - References are made to exploring precedents like this Australian judgment more to build confidence arguing similar cases in New Zealand. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 OIA (Official Information Act) request This refers to the process by which individuals can request information from New Zealand government agencies under the Official Information Act 1988 https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/official-information/oia-guidance-for-agencies/ Section 2 Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department for Child Protection) [2024] SAET 2 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html Emergency Management Act 2004 (South Australia) This is the legislation under which COVID directions were issued in South Australia https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/ Equivalent to NZ COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 This legislation authorized public health orders in NZ. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344134.html Section 3 Section 32A Emergency Management Act 2004 - Protection from liability—COVID-19 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/s32a.html Section 5 Emergency Management Act 2004 - Interaction with other Acts (1) Subject to this section, this Act is in addition to and does not limit, or derogate from, the provisions of any other Act. (2) Where the provisions of this Act are inconsistent with any other Act or law, this Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/s5.html Section 34 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 - Protection of persons acting under authority of this Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344210.html Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 - Protection of persons acting under authority of Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/121.0/DLM308498.html South Australian Public Health Act 2011 https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/south%20australian%20public%20health%20act%202011/current/2011.21.auth.pdf Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Act 2021 https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/v/a/2021/statutes%20amendment%20(covid-19%20permanent%20measures)%20act%202021_25/2021.25.un.pdf RTW Act (Return to Work Act, South Australia): Criteria for work-related injuries. https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/RETURN%20TO%20WORK%20ACT%202014.aspx Section 5 & 6 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Limited https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/2022-NZEmpC-123-CSN-v-Royal-District-Nursing-Service-NZ-Ltd-jud-110722.pdf Accident Compensation Act 2001 (New Zealand): Sections 6 and 25. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM100904.html OF INTEREST Employment Law Updates with Liz Lambert and Erika Whittome – with Emanual Garcia https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/p/employment-law-updates-with-liz-lambert?r=19j3sj COVID-19 Directions - South Australian Legislation https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/legislation/CV19 Quiz bot: https://poe.com/s/2Lv84YwJIJpdbQR9mUVd

This was a fantastic N8 zoom with Liz. One of Liz's open sentences says it all When The State Goes Rouge Thats a Very Dangerous Situation Every Act of Parliament is like a cage - They keep public sector bureaucrats chained and shackled. This is what is meant by "Application" of an Act The America constitution came out of the British state going rouge on them. America was a British colony and bled it of resources and so and the people got angry about that. The first article of their constitution - we are all equal under the law - is basically the same throughout the western world. The English revolution - Devine Right of Kings - George III was King when America became USA. Our BoRA contains codified rights from all our ancient rights. The are based on ancient proverbs For Us The People - Everything That Is Not Forbidden is Allowed but for the People that Administer the law which is the Crown - Everything That is Not Allowed is Forbidden BoRA rights are individual rights not group rights We discuss Fluoride, lockdowns where pushed through using BoRA Sec 5 High Court jurisdiction in employment matters Employment cases that went to the High Court - Butler Case is CIV-2011-404-923, 18 August 2011 High Court, Auckland - Why in the High Court? Book - Bill of Rights Act New Zealand - Rishworth and Others - Canadian cases are quoted BoRA applying to employment contracts? BoRA Sec 3a & 3b - We deep dive in to this - Function and most importantly - Duty Canada - they have something similar Public Duty in BoRA Sec 3b - What is the duty of the employer in the public sector, the DHB, Minister of Health, Universities etc etc Employment Case - GF & Controller of Customs - Judge talks about Tikanga as window dressing. Shane Kinley refers to this saying employers could just go ahead and not look at the safety of the vax. - A great review of this case There is heaps more in this zoom - A definite must watch!!! Thanks Liz! Timeline show notes: Section 1 – 00:00:0) - The episode discusses how everything is allowed under law unless it is explicitly forbidden. - Reminder of a legal maxim from a previous zoom; A senior English judge, Sir John Laws, stated the principles as: "For the individual citizen, everything which is not forbidden is allowed; but for public bodies, and notably government, everything which is not allowed is forbidden." This poses a problem if the law itself has issues. - Every act of Parliament controls a regulator, like cages to keep the state chained, as an unchecked state can act dangerously. - The American Constitution came out of the British state overstepping with the colonies by treating them like a money pot and denying them representation/rights they had in Britain. The cry of the Boston Tea Party. Tensions had been growing for years over issues like taxation without representation. The colonies were taxed by the British but had no seats in Parliament. - A state is a sovereign political entity that has internal and external sovereignty. It is self-governing. A colony, on the other hand, does not have sovereignty and is governed by an external colonial power. - New Zealand is not a colony. - The Declaration of Independence listed 27 complaints against the British colonial administration overstepping. Article 1 lays the foundation for the codified constitution. - The declaration outlined the natural and legal rights of the colonists and charges against King George III that justified revolution and independence. This included tyrannical acts and refusing consent of legislation. - Natural/divine rights like life, liberty, punishments trace back to English common law maxims developed over time from religious texts. - English common law also formed maxims of law, they are like proverbs. - As long as something is not forbidden by statute, it is lawful. But those administering the law (the Crown) can modify rights if deemed acceptable in a free democracy per the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Protects individual rights and freedoms in NZ. However, Section 5 allows rights to be limited if deemed reasonable in a free and democratic society. However, it's been tested lately re lockdowns and fluoride in public water supply. Section 2 – 00:12:11 - There has been pushback on workers' rights cases going to the High Court instead of the Employment Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over employment matters. - In the Yardley case, the judge acknowledged workers' right to retain employment may fall under the Bill of Rights Act Section 28 but couldn't analyse it fully as it was in the High Court. - Two cases, Butler v Shepherd (2013) and Mighty River Power, were discussed in the appeal for Turners freedom of speech case. Butler involved an employee suing the University of Auckland (state agent) in the High Court over an alleged section 11 Bill of Rights violation from his dismissal. - The judge said employment issues belong in the Employment Court/Authority. Academic writings (Rishworth. et.al) at the time also argued the Bill of Rights didn't apply to employment contracts due to the “functionality” argument related to Section 3B of the Act. - The university's actions could fall under 3(b) as a state function, but the case still belonged in the Employment Court. - The discussion questions where the line is between public law rights that judicial review applies to, and employment rights that belong in the specialised employment jurisdiction. Section 3 – 00:22:11 - Section 3(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns limiting the power of the state by binding the executive, judicial and legislative branches in their functions. Bookmark Trudeau and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms equivalent. - Section 3(b) applies to "any person or body" performing "any public function, power or duty" conferred by law. This could include the CEO of a council or water authority. - Think about the word “application” as “who is bound and shackled” - In Butler v Shepherd, the judge focused on the university's "function" rather than its public "duty" as an employer in the public sector to employ people to do the work. - As an employer, the public sector body has a duty to employ people lawfully and not breach their rights. This was overlooked in favour of arguments from a commentary that said employment contracts fall outside the Bill of Rights. - Liz analyses how Section 3(b) should properly be applied to public bodies and individuals acting in an official/employment capacity conferred by law, like the university chancellor, rather than focusing solely on institutional "functions". - Liz explain the difference in how "or" and "and" are used in Acts - "or" makes each option separate, while "and" means both things joined by "and" must be met together for that section to apply. This distinguishes their meaning in terms of applying and interpreting the laws. - Examples given of public bodies include councils, water authorities, the Ministry/DHBs, and how Section 3B binding applies to their conferred duties as much as functions. - Putting fluoride in water was a public function imposed on councils by Dr Ashley Bloomfield in his prior role as Director-General of Health. However, this decision was later overturned. - Section 3B binding on public functions, powers, duties conferred by law on such bodies/employers in the public sector. - Focus should be on public duties as employers, not just "functions" as overlooked in Butler v Shepherd judgment relying on a textbook. Liz didn’t have time to argue that in the 10 pages. Section 4 – 00:30:18 - The case of GF v Comptroller of Customs NZ was important as it discussed tikanga Māori and the employer's duty to be a “good employer”. The case and chief Judge Ingles of the employment court gained notoriety by talking about Tikanga. - The GF case is discussed as an example where an employer's risk assessment around vaccination was deemed inadequate by the Employment Court during an appeal - The employer claimed to follow tikanga but didn't understand it. All employees, Māori and non-Māori, must be treated equally under tikanga in contracts. - The link between public law and employment law is the employer's duty under the Public Service Act to be a good employer and follow Treaty principles. Being a good employer is a central concept in employment law, as the employer has responsibility/power over employees. Duties of a good employer include keeping jobs in place where possible and following principles of natural justice. - This suggests public sector employees could claim Bill of Rights protections as the state exercises duties over them. However, previous cases like Butler were influenced by an Rishworth and others academic text focusing only on functions. - The Mighty River Power case involved a union contract incorporating section 11 of Bill of Rights. The court recognised this could apply in employment contracts, but in the end they didn’t win and that was justified under Section 5. - Previous rulings relying on the academic text created “circular reasoning” that now needs re-examining in light of proper consideration of duties alongside functions. - Liz notes academics look at public law as kind of like in an ivory tower. Employment law is kind of a world unto itself as well. - The submissions to the Court of Appeal argue linking public law duties to employment relationships, as per GF v Controller of Customs, could establish Bill of Rights protections for public servants. - Liz further analyses Judge Ingles’ judgment and discusses issues around interpreting and implementing the Treaty, particularly the principles vs direct incorporation, Article 2 vs 3, and representation in political settlements. - Article 3 mean Māori and non-Māori are covered by the common law of England. Section 5 – 00:43:12 - Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, which refers to chieftain roles, is seen as divisive as it focuses on a historical relationship rather than modern issues. It has benefited those involved in Treaty settlements. Discussion on treaty settlement acts. - Past issues with "elites" or kings in England led to reforms establishing modern legal and governance systems based on the rights of individuals. - Americans rejected continued rule from England and established their own democratic country, returning the discussion to the it started. - Summing up and analysing previous cases like GF and Butler that were influenced by academic texts rather than proper consideration of public duties. - Silence can be as problematic as lies if important issues are not openly discussed. Liz advises “If there's a case that's holding things up, you go find the loopholes in it, you find the arguments in it. - Reminder of last weeks zoom to watch re accredited employers and liability for vax work injuries. - Section 3B of the NZ Bill of Rights Act is seen as the key legal basis for extending protections to public servants. Liz’s legal hook. CEOs that gave exemptions without designations. - Employers claiming to follow orders may not escape liability, as anything not expressly allowed is disallowed under the maxim that what is not included is excluded. - Recent ERA cases found third parties were not controlling employers who terminated members, opening them up to direct liability rather than passing blame to others. No passing the buck. Breach of contract claims may also help overcome PG’s. Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Act 2019. Section 6 – 00:55:43 - OPEN CHAT - Novak Djokovic lost in the Australian Open semifinals, though it was notable he made it that far at age 36 without being vaccinated. Tennis players often peak in their early 20’s and deal with injuries by their early 30s. - Erika was praised for "fighting the good fight" through advocating for legal issues. It's important to maintain graciousness even when strongly advocating. - Due Process of Law Act 1368 - The Canadian trucker protests case found Trudeau's government overstepped by freezing protesters' bank accounts, deemed unconstitutional and impinging civil liberties. Ultra vires. - This weakened the "dam" of what governments can get away with, potentially impacting New Zealand. NZ courts reference Canada more than the US. - Many lack historical knowledge and see anything pre-their lifetime as irrelevant. But history informs legal issues. - Professors' opinions don't always reflect practical legal experiences of arguing cases in court. - Geoffrey Palmer was involved in Treaty/Waitangi legal frameworks but his combining politics and law was questioned. - Upcoming Platform discussion with Michael Laws and Gary Judd about Treaty principles and lawyers' representation of clients could be interesting. - Overall progress could be made through the courts focusing on Article 3's protections for all. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 The maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" - Link to Wikipedia article on this maxim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed Boston Tea Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party Maxims of Law https://constitutionwatch.com.au/maxims-of-law/ British North America Act 1867 (later renamed Constitution Act, 1867) Established Canada's constitution. This was mentioned as an example of another country with a Charter of Rights like Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867 Declaration of Independence (US): Listed 27 complaints of King George III's administration overstepping its authority over the colonies. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript English common law Developed maxims and proverbs around natural rights that formed the basis of laws and constitutions over time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Protects individual rights and freedoms in NZ. However, Section 5 allows rights to be limited if deemed reasonable in a free and democratic society. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html Constitution of the United States Codified rights and separation of powers, coming out of issues with the British colonial administration over the colonies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution Statute law: Laws passed by legislature as written in statutes. It is allowed unless explicitly forbidden by statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_law Section 2 Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak https://nz.vlex.com/vid/jesse-waiariki-temanava-butler-793537537 Electrical Union 2001 Incorporated, Dean Gregory Cowell V And Mighty River Power Limited https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/2013-NZEmpC-197-Electrial-Union-2001-Inc-and-Anor-v-Mighty-River-Pow.pdf Section 3 (b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224799.html Section 5 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Justified limitations Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225501 Section 11 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225509 Section 28 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - Other rights and freedoms not affected https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225531.html The New Zealand Bill of Rights / by Paul Rishworth ... [et al.] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-zealand-bill-of-rights-9780195583618?cc=au&lang=en& Section 4 Articles 2 & 3 of The Treaty of Waitangi https://www.archives.govt.nz/discover-our-stories/the-treaty-of-waitangi/what-te-tiriti-o-waitangi-says-in-english-and-te-reo-maori#s3-read-what-te-tiriti- Section 14 Public Service Act 2020 - Crown’s relationships with Māori https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/whole.html#LMS356875 Section 73 Good employer duties http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/whole.html#DLM7830953 GF v COMPTROLLER OF THE NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2023] NZEmpC 101 [30 June 2023] https://employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-101-GF-v-Comptroller-of-Customs-Judgment.pdf Treaty settlements: Legislation such as Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Act 2014 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0007/latest/whole.html Section 5 Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Act 2019 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0036/latest/whole.html https://www.employment.govt.nz/about/employment-law/employment-relations-triangular-employment-amendment-act/ Section 6 Due Process of Law Act 1368 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/dpola136842e3c3219/notes.html Canadian trucker protests: Canadian Courts Rule Use of Emergencies Act Unjustified https://rumble.com/v4a4hyo-canadian-courts-rule-use-of-emergencies-act-unjustified.html Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975: Established Waitangi Tribunal: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/DLM435368.html Michael Laws & Gary Judd: Comments on representing clients and Treaty principles: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/01/michael-laws-chats-to-gary-judd-kc.html Quiz bot https://poe.com/s/BvWzxBua04gmcsf5bRw4