Japan has historically had an issue with vaccine hesitancy. You wouldn’t know by looking at its COVID-19 immunization stats. Before the world’s third-largest economy started administering shots, it had one of the lowest rates of vaccine confidence in the world. Now, the country — which started doling out immunizations months after the United States — has the highest inoculation rate among the Group of Seven leading industrial nations, and it did it without mandates of any kind. Japan leads the G7 in COVID shots without a mandate in sight BLOOMBERG BY KANOKO MATSUYAMANov 17, 2021

C: Take a look at the world: chaos. Because people like you, paper-pushers and politicians, are too spineless to do what needs to be done, I made an alliance to put the power where it should be, and now you want to throw it away for the sake of democracy, whatever the hell that is. How predictably moronic. But then isn’t that what ‘M’ stands for: ‘moron’?
M: And now we know what ‘C’ stands for: SPECTRE (2020 REBOOT OF HER MAJESTY SERVICE)

TEN MINUTE SUMMARY -WHATS THIS ALL MEAN IN PRACTICAL TERMS.

EXTENDED SUMMARY (30MINUTES – R18 )

IF YOU WANT THE SHORT VERY INFORMAL(& A LITTLE RUDE) INFORMAL VERSION OF WHY THE GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY BREACHING THE PRINIPALS OF JUSTICE (R18) 30 MIN RANTS. DOES NOT COVER THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF GOVERNMENT LEGITIMACY VIA IT MISSUE OF ROYAL PEROGATIVE VIA THE USE F ILLEGAL LEGAL FICTIONS (Muldoon VS Fitzgerald 1975 – Suspension of parliament 2016 UK) via Brexit precedent [citing Muldoon VS Fitzgerald) & Note in part two we do in fact identify the government advisers and their methodology conflict of interest and bias.

Section A Part One EGO VS ECO By Ben Vidgen.

I am going to begin this serious story by telling a joke and to make the point we need not just consider how law impact on us but how they impact our environment as right refer not just to natural persons but a legal person which need not be human being but may in fact be a river or an ecosystem as well.

My treaty ask some pretty simple questions what are rights? Who is entitled to them? What authority does Parliaments have when it determines who has rights ?And are those rights negotiable ,subject to Parliaments whims, or are they inalienable rights which a person or a being need not surrender in accordance with the principle of law and how they are dermined by the criteria of natural justice upon which New Zealand constitutional mechanics/arrangements are founded.

A inspector stopped at Trev’s farm yesterday, he said “I need to inspect your farm for water quality. ”Trev looked at the Crown man shrugged and said “Okay, but don’t go in that field over there.”The 3 waters inspectors verbally exploded saying, “Mister, I am empowered by the authority of the New Zealand Parliament to do as I please!” Reaching into his rear pants pocket, the arrogant little inspector removed his badge and shoved it in Trev’s face. “See this badge?! This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish…. On any land !! No questions asked or answers given!! Have I made myself clear?…. do you understand… you will do as you’re told?!!”Trev looked at the little man, shrugged, and went about his chores. A short time later, Trev heard a loud scream, looked up, and saw the inspector running for his life, moving his little legs as fast as could as he was chased by Trev’s prize bull Mordor who was snorting death and vengeance as he rapidly gained ground on the inspector, and it seemed likely that the man from the government would get gored before he reached safety. The inspector was clearly terrified and yelled out for urgent assistance. Trev threw down his tools, ran to the fence and yelled at the top of his lungs. “Your badge, show him your bloody BADGE!!”

The joke relates to the topic I seek to cover the issue of authority, our rights, what those rights means, and how they can only ever be empowered and ownership established by use.

In other words you use em or you lose em.

Their are two main parts to this treaty.

Part A which argues that right now parliament is operating illegally and has being for over three decades. So put simply its not really in a legitimate position to impose any laws emergency or otherwise. Right now parliament is claiming a level of supremacy it has zero legitimacy to claim.

Part B Underscores the illegitimacy of the state by illustrating the full extent of the legal fiction upon which parliament it trying to pull a fast one. It also demonstrates why seeking protection in the Bill of Rights 1990 is a waste of time. And in fact to do so is to be a part of what can only be called an orchestrated ruse that seek to undermine humans rights globally in the interest of promoting a form of corporate globalism (part three will cover this point further with a break down of the proposed Inconsistency Act) . One which seek to empower the few at the expense of not just humanity but the environment as whole. That it is being done by those who have an appalling human rights and environmental records should be of concern to us all.

BODILY INTEGRITY & THE RIGHTS OF MAN TO OVERRIDE THE LAWS OF NATURE – Introduction — SHUT UP & SWALLOW:

Body integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy, self-ownership, and self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as its defined under the general principle of law (on good old Wikipedia – good place to start as any) “as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal”.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

So we can make this about Vax VS Unvax but to do so would not just be an error but it would be to walk into a fatal ambush – fact is I have opinions about vaccines which are probably better educated than the average layman knowledge due to my qualification and experience on this topic which reach back more than a decade. They includes my coverage of issues such as Sars Swine Flu, biological terrorism and corporate geopolitics. Yet I don’t wish for people to read this and see it as a defence against vaccines such as Novavak which given a voluntary option this author is personally quite comfortable with. The zealots on both sides bore me for I believe they both seek to mislead and misinform the public for their own ends and both parties utterly miss the point.

It is essential to understand that body integrity and the issue of the right to choose or reject medical option stretches way beyond the Simple Simon arguments of Vax and Anti Vax.

What is more important is how such rulings and enforcement of mandates will have an impact not just on man kind but also on the rights of nature and the nature of laws we pass from this point onwards –what precedent’s do they set. Ironically the natural principles of justice when applied to this issue in the bigger picture really are about the environment’s right to legal protection as much as they are about human rights. How we risk via the introduction of mandatory policies and misuse of emergency powers living in a world were both man and nature have no actual rights. Other than what were permitted as privileges granted to us not from the state but via multinationals with appalling human rights and ecological records.

Today if permitted those laws allow the state to declare no job jab and host of other dictates which herald us in to a two tier segregated society which morally is repugnant and socially down right dangerous. Yet even worse tomorrow those same laws, using the same logic, of what powers the state does and does not have today, can then be used to poison a river, or add GMO’s, or other new not fully tested technologies, into increasingly legal entities such as rivers for example. To do so in a way that irretrievably changes and damages the environment’s ecology forever.

Accepting the state’s current assertion that there is no such thing as inalienable rights (rights which can not be surrendered or given up) for sovereign living beings, be they a single human or an entire ocean, no body integrity, is to establish a dangerous precedent. Dangerous not just for us but the entire planet.

One which gives the ‘guardians’ of the environment permission to violate nature and the environment as they please.

So instead of protecting humanity we end up giving such ‘guardians’ the tools that would legally permit them to ‘poison’ not just humans but the planet and kill all life upon it. And while it is the fashionable trend of the status quo, media and even so called the ‘opposition’ group (who choose oddly to base their campaign around the 1990 Bill of Rights – knowing that under under these laws the Courts are powerless to act other than to raise points of inconsistency with parliament), to make this all about vaccines its way BIGGER! than that.

It is thus essential that the public and the courts of New Zealand understand that the issue at stake here extends well beyond the right of the state to enforce medical mandates during a medical emergency. It goes to the heart of the issue what power does parliament actually have period.

I will argue that parliament is exceeding it authority for several reason which I will expand upon shortly. Though the main reason is simple enough parliament itself has a major legitimacy issue. One that has gone unnoticed for the equally simple reason that until now Kiwis have had no reason to question authority legitimacy until the point of crisis made it necessary to do so.

Notwithstanding the issue of the definition of “support” verse “proof” do not meet the legal requirements and definition of what natural justice expects in a New Zealand court of law, or the principles of law upon which they are based – The factors a judge must consider when reaching their determination. These are principles which require due process which our Attorney General David Parker (who after working as a litigation partner for law firm Anderson Lloyd Caudwell later had a business career, as a senior manager, in the agri-biotechnology field, including Blis Technologies, — who make products for companies including Pfizer), is disingenuously not following those principles.

Parker has instead chosen to create a policy based upon set and highly documented political agenda as opposed to scientific rigour and obligations of office. An issue which I will illuminate, via the Department of Health reply to my Official Information Act (and other sources), later on in this piece part two. Further if my main points, that parliament has exceeded its authority, are accepted as correct then such a ruling some law or constitutional expert might argue should not be made by the Supreme Court all. Rather its needs to be determined by the Privy Council. Which in its current form means the bulk of the current New Zealand Privy councillor would have to recuse themselves from judgement due to their own various conflicts of interests and even criminal convictions ( but more on that later). Our current parliament is operating constitutionally under a illegitimate legal fiction.

Legal fiction is a term I will defy later on by citing two examples (1986 Constitutional Act & the 2008 Supreme Court retirement process) that illustrate how the limits of ‘parliament power under a Westminster system of government has being breached.

Both cases at their roots defy the lesson of (Prime Minister) Muldoon VS Fitzgerald 1975.

Further that precedent is now being tested in the 2017 English High Court ruling that the Prime Minister, Theresa May may not suspend parliament by Royal prerogative. During which the case of Muldoon Vs. Fitzgerald 1975 again explains why parliament based on a West Minister system may not empower themselves but is required to follow the law of the land like all its other citizens. The cases rest upon the Bill of Rights 1688 that was originally created to limited the power of monarchy and Her majesty Service (Palace of Westminster -parliament) and provide protection to national sovereignty against external subversion.

The issue distilled, for layman interpretation, is the right of man or an office of the state (government) to have supreme sovereignty (for whatever reasons good or bad), without limits, not just over his fellow man but all sentient creatures who live upon earth and are all subject to the principals of natural justice.

‘DIEV +ET+ MON+DROIT’ (“God & My Right”) is the slogan you will find on the Crown seal today. They are words which harks back to yester era and a time when only monarch’s indeed did have supreme power, until the Bill of Rights 1688 put a stop to that. And if we let ourselves go along with the current lie now being told now then this this is also the view of our current crop of politicians that the queen, via the office of parliament, has supreme sovereignty and the only rights citizens have are those granted to them by parliament. This is an entirely false assertion. False in the context that its being tested here and in the UK repeatedly and proven false.

On November 12th 2021 the High Court ruled that as Guy Hatchett writes (Where Did Our Rights Go Scoop 12.11.2021 THIS ARTICLE HAS SINCE BEING PULLED) “whilst vaccine mandates can create bullying, harassment, and vilification of the unvaccinated and their family members, they do not breach the NZ Bill of Rights. This means that Justice Matthew Palmer believed that vaccine mandates do not violate the provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights including

“Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation” or

“Freedom of thought conscience or religion” or

“Freedom from discrimination” or

“Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment” or

“Rights of minorities”.

“In ruling against the plaintiffs Justice Palmer appealed to section 5 of the NZ (1990) Bill of Rights which says: “the rights and freedoms expressed in this Bill of Rights may be subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

Hatchett explains “You might join me in thinking that Section 5 is chilling in the way that it asserts the ability of parliament to overrule our rights and implies that the majority may impose its views on the minority. How did this happen? Before 2004, NZers had the right to appeal to the Privy Council in the UK. The UK judicial process has essential guarantees built into its constitution known as Common Law. Common Law dates back to the 13th century and to the confrontation between the rebel Barons and King John which resulted in the Magna Carta Libertatum (Great Charter of Freedoms) being signed at Runnymede. Common Law is perpetuated when justices invoke ancient principles of fairness and rights in their interpretation of the law. Lord Chief Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls, and famous advocate of individual justice defined the effect of Common Law as; ‘“what right thinking men consider to be fair between man and man and in these days between man and the state’ (please forgive the gender bias of an earlier age) Helen Clark decided that our right of appeal to the Privy Council was archaic and should be replaced by a NZ institution—the Supreme Court. That seems OK, but in so doing she quietly replaced the central role of Common Law in the judicial process with the ‘supremacy of Parliament’. Parliament now has the right to do almost anything it wishes, even extending to the amendment of legislation with retrospective effect (When caught out it can simply change the law -editor’s note). The NZ courts have consistently taken the view that their role is not to interfere with but rather support the intent of Parliament. The NZ Bill of Rights Act of 1990 thereby has no teeth, it is advisory only and its provisions are regularly ignored or overruled by the courts.…This situation can only be avoided by the repeal of Section 5 of the NZ Bill of Rights [7]”.

Hatchett is correct when he asserts the current situation sits “unnaturally” with the principal of law’s upon which New Zealand’s Westminster style of Democracy is founded. The fault however is not the error of the court (who if you listen carefully has told the public where to look and whom to petition) but a parliament operating in excess of its authority – an issue which from my own experience the parliament gets quite tetchy about when its raised. My own experience (of being on the receiving end of a national media feeding freny) of this in 2017 reminds me of that old saying you know your over the target when you start taking flak. To understand why what Clark did was itself unconstitutional you have to first understand how the mechanics of law, nation hood and state authority work.

So gather round, get your self comfortable, as I outline the big issues and why this goes way beyond vax vs un unvax. How it goes to the core of the marrow concerning what is democracy, how should it work for all people and not just some even in toughest of times. Democracy being the tricky formula of ensuring you don’t just have majority rule but that you have checks and balances to ensure even the rights of the vulnerable and the minority are protected so majority law does not become simply mob rule.

Nature’s law or natural justice, which the principles of law, used in our courts today, were forged from is the deepest and most ancient of roots upon which man grew his own system of law and justice and it balancing checks and balances. These principals can not and should not be ignored ever. And if their is a silver lining to be had from all this. Then it is an opportunity to reacquaint ourselves with those to long neglected values and remind us all, left and right, rich and poor etc,that that every one had rights not just the people we identify with as being like minded. And if you don’t get this then don’t ask for your right’s to be protected if you wont stand up for the rights of all people.

It’s no small point that the electorate of this global elite is not you I. Nor is it any of the other 23 million sentient creatures with whom we share this earth. Rather it is the corporate share holders of interests who by and large can be blamed for bringing the earth’s populace to it current crisis point economically, politically and ecologically as we face the real possibility of global extinction event of all life on this planet within the time span of the millennial generation’s life time. Do we really want to leave the junkie in charge of the medicine cabinet?

After all, it seems absurd in a day and age that presidents, prime ministers and other global leaders jet round the world to hold conferences on climate emergencies, that we should then row in the opposite direction. That the jab mandates open the door to set creating legal/commercial precedent which gives power and rights ONLY to the few. That it sets precedents upon which emergency powers are only based upon the needs of human society with out consideration of what those verdict have on the wider environment – all the while those same opportunists claim to be concerned about planet but fail to walk their own talk, as they tell us to just shut up and swallow.

THE BIG PICTURE:

In this context its absurd that we should think the concept of natural justice, justice for all (including the wider environment), less important now than when we first deemed it essential. Privilege and self entitlement got us into this mess and it is insane to think repeating the same formula well do anything but make a bigger mess. And yet that’s what were expected to believe as the technocrats and pharmaceutical companies hijack the issue of environmentalism and conservation in the interest of power and profit. What ever your views may be on climate change may be you don’t have to be a greenie to get having the same parties who claim to be part of the UN’s global effort to save the planet also being the same parties pushing for the right of corporations to make even more cash, to put profits before people, simply does not add up.

In contrast the principles of natural justice and justice for all (not just some) emerged and evolved over thousands of year as a concept that conflict resolutions did not have to end with a club being swung in some one’s face. Yet this is what we will be reverting back to, caveman’s law, might over rights, if we don’t challenge, at least here in New Zealand, our current government attempts to join the global trend to kill off the rights of individual’s and assert it has the right to ‘govern’ us with supreme power. Supreme power which parliament has only achieved via a process of determined and restless deviation of due process and a disregard of the principals of natural justice that create stable society. A statement I make as a documented acknowledged fact not simply as an allegation.

In the micro I ask has our Attorney General made determination based upon the principal of natural justice as they apply to the principals of law?

Has the AG heard both sides, taken advice (based on actual evidence) by impartial officials and independent experts. Or has the AG just gone to those who it knows it can rely on to give support to a predetermined agenda in regards to the medical emergency (opportunity) presented by the coronavirus outbreak. Who are these people? How exactly are they empowered, so that they may present their ‘support’ while others are simply ignored regardless of their expertise or the actual evidence they seek to present?

To know those question is to know whether the principals of law have being pursued or simply being given lip service.

But then I also ask that question in the Macro context. And it here I ask readers to look at the bigger picture and how this goes beyond the here and now. And how the issue of natural justice takes on an almost literal meaning.

In 2017 New Zealand signed up to a series of trade deals including the The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RECP ). These are trade deals whose Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)  clause had many respected academic (the most famous of which would be Professor Jane Kelsey) deeply concerned, prior to the out break, for they asserted the ISDS risked undermining democracy.

And now in the heat of Covid the public has forgotten about these issues and yet the ISDS have not forgotten about the public or its ultimate goal of privatising the world and plundering her natural resources. Covid has only enhanced the power imbalance and The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), an award-winning think tank, now warns ISDS enhances the ability of multinational to inflict anti democratic abuse as emergency measures are “hitting businesses hard, they are creating an unprecedented risk of foreign investors suing governments under the web of investment treaties concluded across the globe. Our call to action is for governments to come together to either suspend treaty-based investor–state arbitration for all COVID-19 related measures or clarify the application of international law defences during these extraordinary times” [8].

All of which raise three points;

A) The New York based tribunals (new courts) of the CPTPP supersedes the authority of the existing state and give rights to incorporated societies while stripping the right of individual citizens in a way which contravene laws (at least in Commonwealth nations) and natural justice that are based on more senior statues. The claim these statutes have in turn authority that superseded the pretenders claim can be demonstrated by the First nation people of Canada have being tested and accept by international law as well as the Commonwealth courts who interpreting the rights of the First Nation people of Canada via the window of the Westminster system which New Zealand law is based upon;

“Lost in all the hype is the question of whether Canada can legally ratify the TPP—even if the Trudeau government decides that’s what it would like to do. Had the government asked this question of First Nations in Canada, the answer would likely have been no. Canada has, once again, wrongly assumed it has the legal and political authority to negotiate a major international free trade agreement that would significantly impact the constitutionally and internationally protected rights of Indigenous peoples and their lands, waters and resources without their consent. Much of Canada has never been ceded or surrendered by Indigenous Nations. Decisions from Canada’s Supreme Court confirm that unceeded Indigenous lands can be claimed as Aboriginal title, which amounts to the exclusive use, ownership, benefit and control of specific territories by Indigenous Nations. Aboriginal title rights are protected in Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution, making the Indigenous right to make decisions over their lands and resources the highest law in the country. Canada was therefore required to obtain the consent of First Nations before engaging in TPP negotiations. Had this consent been granted, Canada should then have included First Nation representatives in the negotiation process. Neither of these steps happened, which calls into question the legality of any Canadian ratification or implementation of the TPP.” [9]

A second precedent also says the same thing and was announced this very month;

“Vindication, with high expectations that Maori will at last be able to protect our Tiriti rights international trade agreements”. That is claimant Moana Maniapoto’s response to the Waitangi Tribunal’s final report in the long-running claims concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) that was released today. “The Tribunal agrees that the successor to the TPPA, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), breaches the Crown’s obligations to Maori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and failed to protect Maori rights and interests in data and the digital domain. After hearing evidence from tikanga Maori experts and practitioners Potaua Biasiny-Tule, Dr Donna Cormack, Dr Karaitaina Taiuru, the Tribunal recognises that data is part of maotauranga Maori and that maotauranga is a taonga. That puts a heightened duty on the Crown to actively protect those rights, interests and kaitiaki responsibilities under Te Tiriti”. [10]

The NY TPPA tribunals which stand to dine off the opportunity presented by COVID and the government mandates I would also argue breaches habeus corpus. That is the idea the law is equal for all which is also applies to the Tikanga (customary right) of New Zealand and is part of the agreement reached between Maori and Pakeha with the signing of the treaty in 1840 (the document of state hood which follows on from the declaration of nationhood 1835). Habeus corpus, as covered by article 29 of our ‘English statues’ is part of one of the most ancient and non negotiable principle upon which all Commonwealth nations and their indigenous partners founding charters are built. It is based upon of 800 years if history and effectively ratified by the Bill of Right 1688 which is also part of New Zealand/Commonwealth law. It goes right to the heart of the social contract between the state and the private citizen’s own individual rights. These rights are not just protected by one set of laws but in New Zealand protected in depth via the three charters the Treaty, Article 29 and the 1688 Bill of Rights.

The government can’t take these rights away from us if it try’s at best it can park them on the side and try and go around them. But that only works if we forget we have those rights and we don’t take the initiative and simply uses them.

B) The vaccine mandates establish a set of legal and commercial precedents, which when such treaties and their ISSD clauses are taken into account, create a road map for gross corporate abuse of our citizenry and our planet. Further they undermine efforts to combat climate change with genuine conservation to the point that legislation introduced under the guise of treating climate change as a emergency simply become yet another tool of centralising power. One wielded not for the benefit of the wider populace and the planets good health but in the interest and self enrichment of few at the expense of the many.

C) Their is also an over whelming argument to be made that Parliament, via the AG, is making determination based on legislation that empowered parliament which in fact can not seen as real law but is simply a (illegal) legal fiction.

Parliament as a result is exceeding it authority and simply does not have the power to make the ruling its is now trying to enforce as it has no (zero, zip, nada, naught, nyet ect etc) actual authority full stop and it knows this.

I maintain that seemingly amazing and surely outlandish claim is not hard to prove at all, as Hatchett 9and he not the only one) showed us, as incredible as it may seem. The more serious question has this error of constitutional mechanics being done deliberately in which case were dealing with an act of criminal subversion most serious indeed. Or is this simply an out come of compounded ignorance. Though on that last point a maxim of law is ignorance is not a defence in the eyes of the law. So in some ways the last point is moot either way.

My argument are not the arguments of lawyers. I do not make out to be a legal specialist. My argument are the argument of a constitutionalist which as a political science graduate and as some who opinions on constitutional affairs have being sought out and cited in academy and in the media, having written and published on these topics for over three decades, I am qualified to comment on in this capacity

Sources 1-10.

1. Miller, Ruth Austin (2007). The Limits of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, and Rape Legislation in Comparative Perspective. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 9780754683391. Retrieved 6 April 2021.
2. Jump up to:^a b Communication Technology And Social Change Carolyn A. Lin, David J. Atkin – 2007
3. Civil Liberties and Human Rights Helen Fenwick, Kevin Kerrigan – 2011
4. Xenotransplantation: Ethical, Legal, Economic, Social, Cultural Brigitte E.s. Jansen, Jürgen W. Simon, Ruth Chadwick, Hermann Nys, Ursula Weisenfeld – 2008
5. Personal Autonomy, the Private Sphere and Criminal LawPeter Alldridge, Chrisje H. Brants – 2001, retrieved 29 May 2012
6. Privacy law in Australia Carolyn Doyle, Mirko Bagaric – 2005.
7. Where Did Our Rights Go; Guy Hatchett Scoop.com 12.11.2021. (APPARENTLY PULLED FROM PUBLICATION)
8. Protecting Against Investor–State Claims Amidst COVID-19: A call to action for governments The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD),  Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Sarah Brewin, Nyaguthii Maina on April 14, 2020.
9. TPP Dead In The Water Without First Nation consent, Palmater, P; NOVEMBER 1, 2016 Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives.
10. Waitangi Tribunal Claimants win on TPPA and Data Sovereignty Friday, 19 November, 2021 – 12:00 pmVoxy.co.

SHOW US YOU BADGE – OWNERSHIP ESTABLISHED BY USE

Section A Part 2 – Authority By Acquiescence By Ben Vidgen.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”. – Plato

These current laws are based on the legal fiction that Parliament alone has supreme sovereignty of all its purview and determines who has rights and when they have them. This is not only utterly incorrect and unlawful, it is vile and barbaric. When I say this is literally tyranny I say that as some who have written, been published, and been cited by other academics and writers for over thirty years world wide on the subject of terrorism and political coercion.

I believe the Courts of this land New Zealand know this and they have even signalled the public in appropriate manner (meaning they have not breached their jurisdiction in a manner where they would have to recuse themselves), during the public conversation on this topic, that given the support of robust civic minded populace the courts would indeed be willing to challenge parliament claims it alone has supreme power. I believe the court supported by the populace has the means to call Parliament to task, via the process of a judicial review, for exceeding its constitutional powers and mandates of office. And make no mistake they have been exceeded in an extraordinary and expansive manner, in a process which began long before Covid ever emerged on our mental landscape. And again I will offer witnesses who will testify to this fact.

Indeed it has only been because of Covid that the public are now being forced to comprehend the sheer and mammoth scale of that constitutional abuse. Though paradoxically what we are facing now is the very reason this should have been addressed long ago. But gee Trev it seemed all right, what possibly could be wrong and dam it the All Blacks were on TV that night, so lets worry about it another day.

Another day has come and now the courts is waiting for our call.

The courts and judges of New Zealand are not our enemy. I believe their decision to reject legal claims based on the 1990 Bill of Rights is the right call. Such a petition to succeed must be made specifically to Her Majesty (not the Queen) via the Privy Council based upon legislation of the Bill of Rights 1688. This legislation still exists in New Zealand law books and it has seniority over the 1990 Bill of Rights whose own legitimacy is debatable largely due to the manner in which it was created as a result of deviation from lawful due process.

It does so for the same reason the current legislation, upon which the 1990 Bill of Rights was constructed is seriously flawed – namely the ‘replacement’ legislation was never ratified in a lawful manner. Parliament, or more specifically individuals within parliament, have instead simply suspended (not removed) such acts and statues, as instead it set about the task of approving a legal fiction by giving previously non existent powers to the monarch using the politics of misdirection and public ignorance. Parliament is pulling a fast one as it rules by acquiescence alone and not by lawful legitimate constitutional mechanics.

Acquiescence is simply a fancy way of saying if the snake oil salesman can get the public to believe his potion works then who he is to correct their beliefs – however mistaken they may be. It is truism (meaning not up for dispute) of the Westminster system of law that New Zealand parliament and its politicians do not have the power to empower themselves. Only WE the people can do this. And right now our silence alone is empowering their rule by acquiescence.

SHOW US YOU BADGE – OWNERSHIP ESTABLISHED BY USE

Summum Jus Summa Injuria (extreme justice is extreme injustice).Section A Part 3.

By Ben Vidgen

We tend to think of the law and body integrity as a man made thing.

This thinking is a product of our modern world ‘s narcissism. It is an arrogant viewpoint which sees plants and ocean animals as non-sentient beings to be used or killed at will. It mistakenly believes nature is there to only benefit and serve man’s ‘greater good’ of the here and now. It has the right to dominate and harness all it sees with out their being a pay back. Screw the delicate balance of diversity and the complexity of ecological order which we still don’t understand as we send billionaires into space to boldly conquer all they encounter. As we deal with climate change without ever challenging the contribution to ecocide made by the global military industrial complex which literally is not mentioned once in the ICPP report into climate change little alone what has being the impact of more than 2000nuclear detonations since 1944. Meanwhile in 2021 135 million people died as a direct result of “weaponized starvation.…Failure to address their needs will cause a hunger pandemic which will dwarf the impact of COVID” according to the head of the United Nations’ World Food Programme David Beasely said upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize [11].

At what point do we look around at beaches full of masks, an ocean full of plastic, a sky drenched in PCPs and other industrial poison and accept, this kind of narrow thinking has brought us to the precipice of our own self destruction.

This is not science its a kid with ant farm and a magnifying glass.

The Bulletin of Atomic Science highlights we are but a ‘100 seconds from midnight’ the moment mankind wipes itself out through his addiction to environmental destroying technology, indifferent to long term consequences and ignorant to our obligations to nature’s law the model upon which we base the principles of nature justice. Laws which for the survival of all must always take precedence over mankind’s laws (no matter the emergency ) for our survival as a species depends upon it. No we don’t have a right to simply unleash new technologies without first making sure we know what the long term impacts are. Surely that has to be a lesson we have learned as we now declare not just Covid by Climate change an emergency as well. Or is that just more lip service?

For as Noam Chomsky tells the tale “A captured pirate was brought before Alexander the Great. ‘How dare you molest the sea?’ asked Alexander. ‘How dare you molest the whole world?’ the pirate replied, and continued: ‘Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor'”. Caesar is wrong if he beliefs rights are for man and man alone and that Caesar can take and give rights as if they were privileges or pirate booty.

It worth highlighting, to provide an example of how natural justice really does include law as which consider the wider and long term impact to an ecosystem, of which man is just part, the complex legal system used in Ireland in the 17th century Brehon law, which draw in turn from what the Maori would call tikanga or customary law, what the Celts called Tcholoch – earth’s law. It was a system which in turn came from scones (foundations of law laid in stone) most ancient. These deep roots are literally the tree of life in defining the rise of civilization where people hold respect for the sovereignty of not just some living creatures but all.

Summum jus summa injuria is a maxim meaning ‘extreme justice is extreme injustice. Its used in law (and Asterix & Obleix comics) to say that if you make inflexible rules that provide no means of opting out you only end up creating injustice on unnatural justice whose injury outweighs the gains to be had from enforcing such inflexibility ultimately to the detriment of all parties. In other words the Romans are crazy and Nero is a narcistic nut job whose idea of progress is to burn Rome to the ground and make his horse senator.

This ancestral genealogy of the idea of natural justice based on achieving not just the wishes of the many but a natural harmony which brings justice to all traces all the way back to Mesopotamia, the cradle of mankind. [12] These laws listed as a crime the mistreating of trees as not being dissimilar to the penalties for mistreating other humans. That no doubt would seem very Asterix and Obelix and comical to some. Yet Brehon Law shows democracy (and the lore upon which it was founded) was not meant to be just about creating laws that were utilitarian but that genuinely democratic laws are also deeply spiritual and are tied to identity the idea that we are all the collective sum part of the whole and therefore when we punish others we simply punish our slaves. They define not just what it means to be human but to be any living sentient creature of earth who is entitled as such to be their own beings and to have sovereign and body integrity over themselves from the lowest to the highest forms.

What are the Brehon Laws The Irish system of laws were the second oldest surviving system of justice after Sanskrit. The term brehon comes from the Irish word brithem, meaning jurist. Better described as arbitrators or legal advisor to the ruler. Brehon Law provides an example from our early European pre pakeha history (being proud to be Celtic does not mean being proud of being a white cock who embraces colonial bully boy ideas) [12]. One that illustrates man has no right to exert dominance over another sentient living being, however good those intentions (and the road they are paved upon ) may seem in the here and now, the piper must always be paid is not now then later. To think that is to go against the flow of natural justice and push us even closer to midnight. So opposed to saving us emergency laws, made without consideration of the natural justice principles, simply endanger our selves even further.

Sources 11-12:

11. 270 million people face starvation, says WFP as it receives Nobel Peace Prize Reuter 11.12.2020

12 .Trees in Early Irish Law and Lore: Respect for Other-Than-Human Life in Europe’s History Tina R. Fields Published Online:4 Jun 2020 https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2019.0058

SHOW US YOUR BADGE – ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP BY USE – Section A Part Four – A BLOODLESS ILLEGAL COUP By Ben Vidgen

Now I keep saying the current government is based on a constitutional lie. Now let me unpack that for you and explain why;

But before we get too carried away lets make this clear cutting the strings with England is not something I disagree with perse as I am not a royalist (as one paper incorrectly assumed) I am a constitutionalist. Which means cutting the strings is fine by me but lets do it properly and lets make sure the public knows which part to keep or replicate and what these checks ad balances means before we remove them. Which is not what has happened and it has left Kiwi democracy highly vulnerable and it breeds polarising dangerous political instability.

Ian Wishart (my former publisher) notes of the 1986 Constitutional Act in his article ‘NZ’s dirtiest political secret: the bloodless coup of 1986 and the subsequent sinking (as far as the public knew) of the Privy Council’

“Lord Cooke then turns to the debate over whether the citizens hold sovereignty over the Government or vice versa. The latter is the situation in Britain and what was allegedly handed down to New Zealand. A number of republics within the Commonwealth, such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, have constitutions proclaimed or conceived to be derived directly from the authority of the people…No doubt techniques are available, indeed more readily in New Zealand than in federations such as Australia and Canada, whereby New Zealand could take for herself a somewhat similar republican status.’ Interestingly, despite claims from some New Zealand lawyers that our independence from Britain did not require any break in legal continuity requiring public affirmation, Cooke appears to recognise that such changes do require express ratification. ‘Subject to local adaptation and development, it seems likely that the common law of England would still be seen as the lineal ancestor of our private law.’ But even more significantly, Cooke believes the 1986 Constitution Act was, in legal reality, New Zealand’s “Declaration of Independence”. In other words if independence didn’t come during the moment we joined the League of Nations in 1920, then it was definitely 1986. Why? Because the 1986 Act is what Cooke describes as “legal fiction” (13) – a polite way of saying that the Act claims to do one thing but actually achieves another. Specifically, it claims a role for the Queen (the Monarch as opposed to not her majesty) that she did not previously have. Now this may sound like a minor technicality but when you are dealing with something as fundamental as a Constitution and someone like the Queen, technicalities take on a whole new significance.“ [14] The act states that the Parliament of New Zealand ‘continues to have full power to make laws’ – “without, however, specifying any source of that power,” says Cooke.

“It is almost as if the Parliament of New Zealand declared itself the supreme being, acting through the Queen of New Zealand”. (15)

“If the issue were purely a legal one,” continues Cooke, “there would be much to be said for the solution that…the 1986 Act has, deliberately, cut off from United Kingdom roots for the future; and that the head of State that is and the Parliament that is, according to the language of the 1986 Act, have a paramount existence which the ‘full power to make laws’ cannot legally touch.” (16).

Cooke says he was “staggered that such a major legislative move as the New Zealand Parliament chucking out the old Constitution and replacing it with a new one overnight could be achieved without so much as a public wimper. With the old, British-based Constitution out the door, and the New Zealand Government declaring itself lord and master of all it surveyed, it is perhaps little wonder that the Labour Government in the EIGHTIES was then free to begin selling state-owned assets without fear of any constitutional interference from citizens petitioning Buckingham Palace to intervene” [17]. *1

*1 Technically that should be petitioning Westminster Palace (Her Majesty) as opposed to Buckingham Palace (the queen) Westminster is the crown and the Queen is simply the monarch.

And quite likely this will also be the outcome of Labour Public Sector Reforms (2020) and other recently passed legislation, which is working in lockstep with Labour declaring in 2020 that Climate Change was also an emergency. A sly centralisation of power without thought for the long term consequences of how this will undermine democracy. An act which of course will permit Labour, or any future government be it a left wing or a right wing government, a moderate regime, or one with an extreme ideology, to create similar mandates, or deviation of democracy, ( such as suspending parliament, passing legislation under urgency, short cutting or eliminating public contribution to the democratic process), as those rolled out under the Covid Response Bill or worse case scenario can be used to keep existing emergency act extended ad nausea. It has the potential to permit parliament to conduct itself in an undemocratic manner as it fights climate change via a strategy of having VIP’s fly around in Lear jets, and as the war industry continue to get a free pass as it marches us closer to midnight tick tock tick tock.

THE HIJACKING OF BRENTON LAW BY CASEARS & HIS BANKERS

Climate change, Earthquakes and Covid have each provided our MPs with education into how emergencies can provide politicians (regardless of if they are perceived as ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’) golden opportunities to shortcut the democratic process.

For example before Covid and Labour National’s Gerry ‘Who ate all the pies’ Brownlee’s famously subverted the resource consent process to fast track questionable development under emergency powers . Today ex Todd [THE SUPER POWERFUL BUT VITTUALLY INVISIBLE NZ CORPORATION) Energy executive Chris Hipkins has tabled the Public Sector Reform Bill, which also provided provision to give minister exceptional powers to help make the MP’s job of being lackeys for lobbyist so much easier.

Our MPs are quick understudies. Incidentally Hipkin’s was Ardern’S, a professional communications expert, minder while she was based in London seconded to the Blair’s neoliberal government. Ardern had being sent via Helen Clark to help Blair sell Rogernomics (also known as the Third Way) style reforms as a senior policy adviser to the Better Business Bureau. The BBB public private partnerships reforms are of the very kind of corporate government collaboration, that another famous, albeit fictional, civil servant 007 Her Majesty Servant warned us about in the geopolitical parody ‘Spectre’. Meanwhile The Public Service Commissioner recently gave a nod to how this bill can be worked in along side both the Covid special powers (granted under emergency provisions) and the New York based UN driven Climate Substantial Development Goals (SDG) the climate change policy worked out between governments and corporations – many of whom are also signatures to the New York CPTPP (TPPA) Beings based RECP or some cases both. The core members of the TPPA aligned nations are also participating in the USA Biden hosted Democracy Summit figures in a partnership of government, “civil society” & the private sector for “affirmative” action for democratic to champion Climate change and programs such as the Christchurch Call to Action with governments, industry, and civil society working together to eliminate “extremist” content online and combat misinformation.

Speaking of extremists and the need to champion democracy Lord Cooke asks the extreme question “whether the current Government is illegal, by virtue of the fact that an unlawfully constituted government cannot simply legislate itself into lawful existence” [18]

That is todays parliament is acting without due authority*1 , this is after Helen Clark went sod you to Her Majesty Service (Westminster) as she invented fictional powers for a Queen of her own invention. Knowing all along that the average Kiwi does not get 007, does not work for the “Queen” but is a public servant (works for all us) on Her Majesty Service & NOT Buckingham Palace’s pleasure or for that matter Helen’s pleasure either.

*

This last point is not a minor point when we consider the case of Muldoon vs the Chief Justice 1975 in which pretend powers were declared illegal.

Cute as the meme (photo left) is it was in fact Her Majesty Service (Westminster) and not the Queen who dealt to the Constitutional Issue of Brexit in 2017 and it is HMS who may empower parliament.

The ruling determines Parliament may not enact pretend powers of Royal prerogative that do not exist. The UK’s Secretary of State does not have power to give an Article 50 notice for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union. The decision concerns which body – the executive or Parliament – controls which aspects of foreign relations, and its conclusion will be surprising to many. It is important not only for the United Kingdom, but also for New Zealand, a country which relies extensively on its networks of international treaties and must address the issue of obligations to treaty partners and its constitutional obligations to its citizens.

The decision concerns which body – the executive or Parliament – controls which aspects of foreign relations, and its conclusion will be surprising to many. It is important not only for the United Kingdom, but also for New Zealand. This is a bold conclusion, the wider legal implications of which – for other treaties and statutes – remain unclear. No doubt the principles will be further explored and refined in the forthcoming appeal. In the meantime, New Zealand should take note, as the constitutional discussion in the United Kingdom has the potential to influence New Zealand law, particularly in an MMP system where the Government does not ordinarily command an outright Parliamentary majority. (19).

Further Anthony Te Uruhi Wihapi, speaking on behalf of Te Arawa No 1 Maori executive committee working party, said New Zealand first needed to adopt a written constitution and the Treaty of Waitangi into law before a Supreme Court should have being set up.

“We believe until the Treaty of Waitangi is formally incorporated into New Zealand law we cannot support the final cutting of ties with the Privy Council as it is not the Privy Council that is the important tie but rather our tie to the English monarch,” said Mr Wihapi. The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Maori and London, not Wellington, and the establishment of a Supreme Court would significantly alter that relationship, select committee MPs were told”.(20)

Mataatua District Maori Council spokesman Maanu Paul questioned why Maori should have to give up appeal rights to the Privy Council when the system had worked well for them.”If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” (21). “The Government was not entitled to arbitrarily sign away the rights Maori had under article three of the Treaty of Waitangi which included the right to have their cases heard by the Privy Council, said Mr Paul. “Each of the 954 hapu need to agree that they relinquish their right to have their case heard by the Privy Council. Until this happens the bill should not be enacted.” (22)

The Supreme Court Act 2003 achieved the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and established the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the apex and final appellate court of our judicial system. The move did not appear to be a reaction to a particular constitutional event, rather a step in New Zealand’s journey to independence from our colonial roots. The proposal triggered heated debate – many considered the Law Lords to be far more talented, independent and objective that New Zealand judges could be and that the Attorney-General would play favourites in judicial appointments. On the other hand, the supporters contested that specific New Zealand legal knowledge and experience outweighed any merit in retaining the Privy Council. (23)

However, note that updated Electoral Act did not reflect the Royal Commission’s full recommendations. so the intention to further democracy and indigenous rights can as a result be seen as not having been a primary motivator for the suspension (technically not an elimination) of the Privy Council which still exists but has been stacked with those who are participants to the ruse.After the 2002 general election, the Labour-led government commissioned a report from a ministerial advisory group upon which the Supreme Court Bill was based. The government also committed to a consultation effort with both Maori and pakeha in the development of the Bill, which was generally seen as unsatisfactory. there was also much opposition to the Bill in the House, and calls by academics and politicians that the issue should have been subject to a higher level of consensus. For example, James Allan believes that just because a change is within the legal powers of a democratically elected Parliament, change by a bare majority in Parliament is unconstitutional. As such, something more should have being required of the government of the day, whether it be a referendum, a specific mandate in a general election, or a supermajority in the House signalling cross-party support.[24]

There was also much opposition to the Bill in the House, and calls by academics and politicians that the issue should have been subject to a higher level of consensus. For example, James Allan believes that just because a change is within the legal powers of a democratically elected Parliament, change by a bare majority in Parliament is unconstitutional. As such, something more should have being required of the government of the day, whether it be a referendum, a specific mandate in a general election, or a supermajority in the House signalling cross-party support.[25]

The Constitutional Arrangements Committee (CAC) 2005 was a select committee initiated by the Labour-led government to review New Zealand’s existing constitutional arrangements. Its terms of reference required the committee to identify and describe: • New Zealand’s constitutional development since 1840 • the key elements in New Zealand’s constitutional structure, and the relationships between those elements; • the sources of New Zealand’s constitution; • the process other countries have followed in undertaking a range of constitutional reforms; and • the processes which it would be appropriate for New Zealand to follow if significant constitutional reforms were considered in the future. The CAC consisted of members from Labour, the Greens, Act and United Future, with the National Party and New Zealand First choosing not to be represented during the process. The committee’s report contained three modest recommendations. The first set out four generic principles that should underpin future constitutional change in the absence of any prescribed process: {26]

1. The first step must to be to foster more widespread understanding of the practical implications of any change; This has never happened in any meaningful way.
2. Specific effort must be made to provide accurate, neutral, and accessible public information on constitutional issues, along with non-partisan mechanisms to facilitate ongoing local and public discussion; This has never happened period
3. A generous amount of time should be allowed for consideration of any particular issue, to allow the community to absorb and debate the information, issue and options. Increasingly our government has in fact rushed through steps as it set off to create an agenda in line with globalised developments and out international treaty partners with out genuine discussion regarding the wishes of New Zealand’s people.
4. There should be specific processes for facilitating discussion within ALL Maori communities (NOT JUST AT THE LEVEL OF RANGATIRA OR IWI STEWARTSHIP)on constitutional issues. Some part of Maori community have being consulted, namely those in line with the TPPA corporate globalisation models, but not all.

CAC recommendation was to foster greater understanding of our constitutional arrangements in the long term, with an increased effort being made to improve civics and citizenship education in schools. [27] This has in fact not only happened but it has headed in the opposite direction as the corporatized global model is pursued in school by the government and its private industry partners.

The Government was asked to consider and respond to whether an independent institute could foster better public understanding of, and informed debate, New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. [28] The government remains silent as to what it thinks about this idea. The CAC stated: “Looking at New Zealand’s constitution, we have concluded that the lack of consensus on what is wrong, and how or whether it could be improved, means that the costs and risks of attempting significant reform could outweigh the cost of persisting with current arrangements.” [29] .

Ultimately the CAC determined that embarking on a fundamental constitutional discussion would run the risk of irretrievably unsettling the status quo, and that stimulated debate may prompt division and disagreement in communities, polarise society, and generate political instability so it was much better to stuff it in the sock draw and just forget about it all.

As such, none of the CAC’s recommendations were acted upon in any meaningful way as a direct result of their inquiry (30)

Sources: 14 -30.

14. Ian Wishart NZ’s dirtiest political secret:

15-18 Ibid

19. Brexit and Parliamentary Sovereignty – implications for NZ? Chapman Tripp Daniel Kalderimis, Tracey Epps , Matt Sumpter and Sarah Quilliam-Mayne Nov 16 2016.

20. Mr Wihapi. Losing Privy Council a ‘threat’ to Maori rights New Zealand Herald  May, 2003.

21 -22 Ibid.

23: The Problem of Constitutional Law Reform in New Zealand: A Comparative Analysis Rachael Jones A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago – Te Whare Wananga o Otago October 2013

24 -30 Ibid.

SHOW US YOU BADGE – OWNERSHIP ESTABLISHED BY USE Section A Part Five By Ben Vidgen. FALSE FLAGS & PRETEND LAWS.

So why are people like Sue Grey, a lawyer and leader of right wing party ‘Outdoors’, fighting no jab no job on the 1990 Bill of Rights which is based on the UN (Agenda 2030) laws and does not recognise body integrity as inalienable right ( a right which can not be withdrawn or surrendered)? [29] And regardless that a judge can go tut tut that is all they can do.

Say What!?

There is currently no explicit power in the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to issue a declaration. Courts are directed, by section 6, to interpret legislation consistently with rights “wherever possible”, but where that is not possible, they must apply the law despite any inconsistency. [31]

As part of that process the Court would analyse or might even criticise legislation and its impact on rights, and might record as part of its reasoning that a consistent meaning cannot be found, and the Court would then still be required to apply the legislation despite its view that it trod on out rights. The Crown has argued that this was permissible and valuable in the process of judicial reasoning, but was different in nature to a formal remedial order, which could be given where it did not have any impact on the law or the rights and interests of parties to the litigation. [32].

The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that a declaration of inconsistency was part of the courts’ inherent common law power, and did not need to be expressly authorised by Parliament. The Supreme Court (which itself is unvries due to the unconstitutional manner in which it had been created) heard the appeal in March and judgment was reserved.”

In the interim this Government decided, in principle, that the 1990 Bill of Rights should be amended to expressly authorise judges to make declarations of inconsistency. We think Parliament should provide for such a power said David Parker Attorney General [33]

Whoopty doo the Court can complain but that is all it can do. And as we shall later see Parker’s generosity is a false flag and yet another way to pass power to New York America’s commercial capital.

Sue Grey’s defence is thus at best a publicity stunt and at worse a false flag for people to rally around as people are permitted to be distracted with false hope, and so like a gun firing blanks, Grey makes lots of noise but that is it all she doing. Not unlike Donald Trump’s own amazing capacity to sink real issues due to the misinformation and toxic baggage he inevitably bring to the arena that is guaranteed to pour gasoline on the flame and set the left and right alight so that the toxic fumes just add to the confusing environment of smoke and mirrors and thus obscure and polarise.

So let’s get to the nitty gritty.

Clark’s Labour government Supreme Court legislation in 2004 set the conditions which then enabled the Crown to strip the rights of Māori to seek customary right title through the courts. Many within the Maori world backed her thinking they would be in a better position to further their claims, only to find out afterwards the opposite was true.[34]

This is now how both He Puapua, the Maori Wards and Three waters is being also promoted, though encouragingly the Maori community is itself seeing through the Trojan exterior and calling foul upon the Greek soldiers who lie within. Regardless the propaganda machine is enormous in part funded by Covid relief funding and assisted in turn by a compliant/greedy media and the conditions created by the Covid emergency as the government works promoting such misinformation. All aide by power lobby groups [Left wing tech firms hoping to profit and right wing political action groups seeking to surf the opposition as mean of gaining power or legitimising their own agendas] and and the USA whose has it own agenda, namely opposing China, concerning the ability for foreign corporations to access our natural resources and stifle New Zealand’s democratic process.

In an interview for RNZ’s The 9th Floor, Miss Clark stood by her actions but has now changed her sales pitch for a difference audience group. This was no longer about serving indigenous people’s interest but was about the right for New Zealanders to be able to walk along the coast which Clark said was “pretty precious, without somebody saying – get off my land!” That access would have been threatened, she said, if not for the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Either Clark being a simpleton (as there are plenty examples of private ownership which do not have to abide by the Queens chain) when she says that or its one more example of  the public being mislead and polarised on what is occurring here in terms of making laws that in fact suit corporate globalisation models such as the TPPA which empower mining and energy companies like Todd perfectly. [35]

The Labour Party has never apologised for its actions, though Andrew Little – while party president – now called the legislation a mistake. Labour MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, Meka Whaitiri, said she couldn’t justify the decision to remove the rights of Māori. “It was a dark time in Labour’s history, but it’s also a sharp reminder of us not repeating that again.” [36]

Except that is exactly what happening despite the media amnesia.

Yet this is more of the same charades which seek to enforce the fiction that the silent coup of 2004 (which rides off the back of the 1986 Constitution Act which Justice Cook branded a legal fiction) however unfortunate was legitimate.

This in turn promotes the idea that the 1990 Bill of Rights has replaced our inalienable rights away from us. This BIG LIE is not even in keeping with a single document or charter that the United Nations itself has based their own declaration of right upon until 1990 when the UN changed its interpretation of what rights mean (more on that later). Parliament’s interpretation that it can suspend body integrity and the Rule of Law, contravene Article 29 and all Imperial statues which take precedence over The 1990 Bill of Rights is constitutionally speaking simply nonsense.

MEET THE DEEP STATE AOTEROA:

A) The failure to get public ratification on the source of parliament’s power is alum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita) the literal translation being it is just “wrong”

B)  New Zealand Legal History (2nd edition) says when New Zealand was founded as a British colony in 1840, its inhabitants as British subjects acquired the right to appeal to the Queen (Her Majesty) in Council. [36] “Four years later, an Imperial Act gave statutory validity to the Crown’s right to hear appeals from colonial courts.  As a preliminary step, an appeal required a ‘Petition to the Queen’, twelve years after New Zealand’s Supreme Court sat for the first time on 1 July 2004, there were 22 New Zealanders who were appointed to the Privy Council.  [37]

Of those listed as New Zealand members of Her Queens (not her Majesty/Westminster)Privy Council, there are eight former and one current judges, many of whom have sat on the Judicial Committee – until 2004 our highest court. They are judges skilled in constitutional matters who with the exception of Dame Sian Elias, who is married to a top Fletcher’s executive , have no apparent conflict of interest. They include; Rt Hon Sir Duncan McMullin, Rt Hon Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, Rt Hon Sir Michael Hardie Boys, Rt Hon Sir John Henry, Rt Hon Sir Edmund Thomas, Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith, Rt Hon Sir Peter Blanchard, Rt Hon Sir Andrew Tipping and Rt Hon Dame Sian Elias. Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC, while not a member of the judiciary, is also a Privy Councillor. [38]

And now??

Current members listed in order of precedence:	Appointed
PALMER, The Right Honourable Sir Geoffrey Winston Russell, KCMG, AC, QC former politician member of Parliamentarian for Global Action A UN NGO which advocates for global governance. Left wing.	23 December 1985
HUNT, The Right Honourable Jonathan Lucas, ONZ former politician member of Parliamentarian for Global Action A UN NGO which advocates for global governance. Left wing (yeah right).	1 November 1989
HARDIE BOYS, The Right Honourable Sir Michael, GNZM, GCMG, QSO	1 November 1989
CLARK, The Right Honourable Helen Elizabeth, ONZ enacted the questionable Supreme Court Act 2004 head of a think tank financed by offshore interest still politically very active. In 1986, Clark was the General Secretary of the New Zealand branch of the pro-world government Parliamentarians for Global Action organisation. This was formerly known as Parliamentarians for Global Law. The Global Progress Commission’s mission statement – drafted with Helen as one of it’s international advisers – has much to say on the need for world government. “Globalisation is an irreversible phenomenon of our time. We have entered a new age based on the globalisation of the world economy, and the Left cannot approach this reality in a spirit of rejection. “Globalisation creates the possibility of opening up a new frontier of development, where old dogmas are no longer of any use.” Among “fundamental questions” that the Global Progress Commission hopes to provide answers to: “What can be expected from coordinating economic policies or from a world economic government?” “We do not want nationalist, populist, bloated States…the social legitimation of political power involves the role of the State with regard to citizens’ welfare, educational opportunities, health, pensions and access to all the other social rights and public services – in short, social cohesion policies.” The GPC fervently believes the State, exemplified by a powerful parliament operating beneath a collective world government organisation, offers the best solution for public welfare and human progress. “Civil society without effective political institutions creates a void which gives opportunities to the demagogues who promise to exclude the intermediaries like the parliament…or to lay the groundwork for what is called a people’s democracy (or the saviour of a nation, which is even worse)...Whenever the emotions of the people rock the ship of state, the political parties turn into a stabilising element and guarantor of [the State’s] continuity.” The Global Progress Commission admits it’s goals are controversial. “Because of our supporting political parties, we are accused of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries”. Left wing	9 February 1990
BOLGER, The Right Honourable James Brendan, ONZ former politician, member of Parliamentarian for Global Action A UN NGO which advocates for global governance. Right wing.	16 April 1991
McKINNON, The Right Honourable Sir Donald Charles, ONZ, GCVO former politician, member of Parliamentarian for Global Action A UN NGO which advocates for global governance. Right Wing.	8 April 1992
BIRCH, The Right Honourable Sir William Francis, GNZM Right Wing.	8 April 1992
HENRY, The Right Honourable Sir John Steele, KNZM, QC	19 November 1996
THOMAS, The Right Honourable Sir Edmund Walter, KNZM, QC	19 November 1996
SHIPLEY, The Right Honourable Dame Jenny (Jennifer Mary) Shipley,  DNZM A 2021 Court of Appeal ruling which found directors including Shipley failed construction company Mainzeal breached director duties will likely result in a significant increase in damages awarded to creditors, the company’s liquidators say. Right wing.	21 May 1998
PETERS, The Right Honourable Winston Raymond, MP Winston is a serving MP so automatically has a conflict of interest here in that you can not have two mistresses. Winston does not have wings he has faces two of them.	21 May 1998
GRAHAM, The Right Honourable Sir Douglas Arthur Montrose, KNZM. Disgraced former finance company boss Sir Douglas Graham will retain his knighthood, Prime Minister John Key announced in 2013. Graham was among four Lombard Finance directors convicted of making false statements in a company prospectus. Last week they lost a bid to have the Supreme Court hear an appeal against their convictions. Mr Key said Sir Graham might have given up his knighthood had the Government not told him he didn’t have to. Prime Minister John Key told media this afternoon he had made the “very difficult decision” not to take away his knighthood after thinking about it at length. Doug’s brother is Green MP Keith Graham who is a member of Parliament for Global Action A UN NGO which advocates for global governance. A old family with a bob each way.	21 May 1998
EAST, The Right Honourable Paul Clayton, CNZM, QC former politician. Right Wing.	21 May 1998
KEITH, The Right Honourable Sir Kenneth James, ONZ, KBE	21 May 1998
BLANCHARD, The Right Honourable Sir Peter, KNZM	21 May 1998
TIPPING, The Right Honourable Sir Andrew Patrick Charles, KNZM	21 May 1998
CREECH, The Right Honourable Wyatt Beetham, CNZM former politician. Right Wing	24 November 1999
ELIAS, The Right Honourable Dame Sian Seerpoohi, GNZM, PC married to a senior Fletcher’s executive.	24 November 1999
UPTON, The Right Honourable Simon David former politician, member of Parliamentarian for Global Action A UN NGO which advocates for global governance. Right Wing.	14 December 199

I guess Privy Councillors are just not what they used to be. [39]

The window-dressing of the two main parties does not camouflage the fact that both parties are controlled by the same money powers. The current body of Privy Councillors also highlights this point.

If we look at the record of the Labour and National parties (Left wing vs Right wing allegedly) over the last 3 to 4 decades we find there is very little difference between the two. Both parties just is the case in the USA have pushed a global agenda of centralised power and wealth; both parties have pushed policies that have enriched the oligarchy while reducing the standard of living of the masses for both the working class and the middle class. Even the minor parties, the Greens, New Zealand First, Progressive, ACT, and United Future, all promote policies that act against the interest of the masses and ultimately operate in manner that has polarised and destabilised wider society for the benefit of a few; not one of the minor parties challenges the power of the oligarchy. All the minor parties push and promote financial and economic policies that protect the power of the oligarchy; that push and promote policies that are internationalist and elitist in outlook (whether they back the left or right), result in ever increasing levels of centralisation, so thus these minor parties must also be treated as the enemy of the masses.

It should be of interest to note that at least forty-three Members of Parliament were, as of 22nd of March, 2004, members of Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), which was formerly, before 1986, known as Parliamentarians for One World Order. Parliamentarians for Global Action was established in 1978-1979 in Washington, DC, U.S.A. According to the Parliamentarians for Global Action website the Parliamentarians for Global Action is grateful to the following donors for their generous support; the New Zealand International Aid and Development Agency (NZAID), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust. The Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust was established by the mega rich Stewart Rawlings Mott, a General Motors heir. Parliamentarians for Global Action is one of the specific organizations promoting “global governance” and a “genuine internationalism”, which has been funded by the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and Rockefeller Foundation. The following list contains the names of New Zealand Members of Parliament belonging to Parliamentarians for Global Action. This PGA lists source is MP John Tamihere, and is dated the 22nd of March, 2004.

LABOUR PARTY PGA members: Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Tim Barnett, Rick Barker, Ruth Dyson, Phil Goff, Pete Hodgson, Jonathon Hunt, Annette King, Trevor Mallard, Ashraf Choudhary, David Cunliffe, Lianne Dalziel, Helen Duncan, Martin Gallagher, Ann Hartley, Janet Mackey, Steve Maharey, Nanaia Mahuta, Damien O’Conner, Mark Peck, Jill Pettis, Lynne Pillay, Ross Robertson, Jim Sutton, Paul Swain, Judith Tizard, Dianne Yates, and Harry Dunyhoven.
NATIONAL PARTY PGA members: Don Brash, Gerry Brownlee, Wayne Mapp, Lynda Scott, Nick Smith, Georgina Te Heuheu, and Pansy Wong.
GREEN PARTY PGA members: Rod Donald, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Keith Locke, and Nandor Tanczos. PROGRESSIVE COALITION PARTY PGA members: Jim Anderton and Matt Robson. ACT PARTY PGA members: Ken Shirley.

Other prominent PGA members are or have been: David Lange, Geoffrey Palmer, Mike Moore, Richard Prebble, Marianne Hobbs, John Carter, Murray McCully, and Maurice Williamson. It should be noted that Mike Moore apart from being a member of Parliamentarians for Global Action was also Director-General of the World Trade Organisation from 1999 to 2002. [40]

DUE PROCESS WITHOUT DUE AUTHORITY CREATES NEGOTIORUN GESTIO ‘CLOWNS LAW’:

So the PGA want global governance in part to stamp out corruption and they will have it even if it means deceiving the public by getting what it wants with out following due process okay that sounds like a bad joke.

Lord called the 1986 Constitution Act a “legal fiction” (41) – a polite way of saying that the Act claims to do one thing but actually achieves another. Specifically, it claims a role for the Queen (the Monarch as opposed to not her majesty) that she did not previously have.

In the 1976 case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others. Prime Minister Robert Muldoon advised the Governor-General to abolish a superannuation scheme established by the New Zealand Superannuation Act, 1974, without new legislation. Muldoon felt that the dissolution would be immediate and he could later introduce a bill in parliament to retroactively make the abolition legal. This claim was challenged in court and the Chief Justice Herbert Wild declared that Muldoon’s actions were illegal as they had violated Article 1 of the 1688 Bill of Rights, which provides “that the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority … is illegal.” [42]

This specific case was cited as recently as 2020 in relation to Theresa May’s plan to suspend parliament was Fitzgerald VS Muldoon 1975. [43]

And yet that is exactly what Clark had done not once but three times; once with the 86 Bill, then with the 1990 Bill of Rights and finally the 2004 Supreme Court Act.

The treaty To Remind People of the Bill of Rights 1688 noted “The Bill of Rights declared: ‘that the pretended power of suspending of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal’; and ‘that the pretended power of dispensing with laws or execution of laws as it hath been assumed and exercised of late is illegal’.. It may be desirable that sometimes people be reminded of this and of the fate of James II who was forced to flee his kingdom and to be replaced as King of England, Scotland, Ireland and His other Realms and Territories. Mr R. D. Muldoon remains Prime Minister of New Zealand today as he was on 15 December 1975 but he and the people of New Zealand have been reminded by the Supreme Court of the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688 which established once and for all that regal authority may not be exercised in an arbitrary manner without regard for the laws laid down by Parliament”. [44]

And up until 1986 that would have been that.

Things then get tricky and yet they don’t if we follow that what is written above is of equal application to the following deviation from the rule law today as what had taken place with Muldoon in 1975 when he was taken down a peg by the supreme court of his arrogance.

How did this bad joke get pulled off? Well it follows the 1984 electoral campaign when the New Zealand Labour Party, then in opposition, emphasised constitutional reform which it used to help it get elected in the same manner than Jacinda Arderns government had campaigned to stop the TPPA. Something which Labour had in fact tabled under Clark in 2008 but the public was never reminded of this little fact except on one occasion by some jerk who has the radical conspiracy theory National and Labour are as bad as each other during the lead up to the 2017 when he suggested Labour would sign it anyway elections. The same jerk has even be argued the Groundswell/Freedom movement promise to stop the attack on human rights well come to naught if it allows it message to be hijacked by Wellington politicians or other interest groups pretending they want rights for all when that in fact is not what they want at all.

Once Labour was elected to office it made huge changes in New Zealand’s stable and fundamentally fair economic and social policies that widened the gap and brought in a class of haves and have not. It introduced extensive constitutional reform that went the opposite direction of what voters thought they wee voting in. It implemented pro corporate privatisation, state sector reforms, plus public finance reforms that are all similar to what we are now seeing take place under Ardern Covid government now. The promised constitutional reforms did not emerge. Namely because of the way Clark chose to sell these ‘reforms’ to the public with a declaration of intent that would then provided retrospective protection for the Bill of Rights after the fact they had been passed into the House;

All of which did not bring in greater democratic powers. In fact it did the very opposite.

And, of course, the introduction of a toothless 1990 Bill of Rights also sought to remove New Zealand democratic rights while undermining New Zealand sovereignty, Again was what Lord Cooke would call a legal fiction. Except much of this ironically would be done, as we shall shortly, using pretended power which as I just showed with the case of Chief Justice VS Muldoon showed was a NO NO!! not legal but illegal[45]

In the human rights area, the reasons for needing constitutional reforms were cited by Labour as :”virtually unlimited powers of Parliament and the government, especially in a parliamentary system of government, the extensive role of the state, the limited controls on the exercise of parliamentary and governmental powers, the danger of erosion of human rights, the danger of waiting (an insurance policy cannot be bought after the house has been burned down), the enhancing of accountable and democratic government, the implementation of New Zealand’s international obligations and the example of others. Another particular reason related to the constitutional recognition and affirmation of the rights of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi.” But after promising to call the New Zealand Public in the morning after some sweet pillow talk and a good rogering, these reforms failed to deliver those goals other than to let parliament do what it wanted [albeit “illegally” -to quote Chief Justice VS Muldoon).

The contractual phase for this is negotiorun gestio a non-contractual obligation arising out of an act performed without due authority in connection with the affairs of another person concerns a relationship existing between the parties. Such as one arising out of a contract or a tort/delict, that is closely connected with that non-contractual obligation, it shall be governed by the law that governed that relationship before the contract was entered into. Under Muldoon the contract was even parliament had to follow the laws and he was told not deal.

I call it Clowns Law becuase it a bit of a sick joke really. The question are we honoured bound by these terms today in terms of the loss of human rights or is the joke on the jokers?

Would a judicial review on these grounds result in a turning back of the clock to when we did have rights separate from the whim of politicians. who saw themselves as little napoleons.

A nasty rash began to emerge in the constitutional neither region of New Zealand concerning the use of legal fictions which gave government powers they were not entitled to and did not have the due authority to execute. The promised entrenchment provision would have prevented the repeal of, or amendment to, any provision of the Bill of Rights, unless the proposal.

(1) had been passed by a majority of 75 per cent of all the members of the House of Representatives, or

(2) had been carried by a referendum of the electorate.

Lets repeat that all together boys and girls it was at this point considered the norm to be that if you wanted to open up the bonnet of the engine of government and make major changes to its constitutional engine you were required to have 75% majority of the House of Representatives or hold a referendum.

None of which occurred with the 86 Constitution Act, the 1990 Bill of Rights or the 2004 Supreme Court Act. Though it would be offered on the Flag Referendum once Key had stacked the Flag Panel and Constitutional with yes people and brought in consultants to rig the results. Though ultimately on this occasion the New Zealand public said bugger off.

That formula of majority of the House of Representatives or a referendum, wuth a 75% return is based on the provision included in New Zealand’s electoral law (electoral law is entrenched law which parliament may not subvert) and has been since 1956.

Yet as Prime Minister Robert Muldoon had advised the Governor-General to abolish a superannuation scheme established by the New Zealand Superannuation Act, 1974, without new legislation (Act), because Muldoon felt a bill in parliament made retroactively would do the trick.

Labour likewise took upon itself the right to enact major constitutional changes on the promise retrospective legislation would come later on. So much for Chief Justice Herbert Wild declaration that Article 1 of the Bill of Rights 1688 prohibits “the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority. “

The Bill of Rights 1689, also known as the Bill of Rights 1688,is a landmark Act in the constitutional law of England that sets out certain basic rights. It received the Royal Assent on 16 December 1689 and is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William III and Mary II in February 1689, inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment . It also includes no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights described and condemned several misdeeds of James II of England. And has direct reference here in terms of the legality of creating pretend laws which empower parliament at the expense of the public. [46]

JAMES AND THE MAGIC TIME MACHINE.

These ancient rules of what sovereigns can and can not do are not just there for shits giggles but are created to protect certain core features of the electoral system, but with the notable difference that the legislation while not strictly speaking is not entrenched is worded in such a manner as to protect itself.

It was done that way just in case oh I don’t know a crisis like a pandemic comes along and an unscrupulous overly ambitious government sees an opportunity to extend and centralise its own power base at the cost of our democratic freedom.

Freedoms which are not just about protecting us from the jab but are their to stop future governments from then using those provisions (granted in Coivd case under emergency provision) and establishing precedents that can then trap us into foreign international treaty obligations, or be used to harm the environment, or engage in further human rights abuse , or all of the above, because the government’s hand picked non serving (and therefore free of public accountability) experts and media pundits have given them support (which remember is not the same thing as evidence) for their actions. Such as a saying for example a giant corgis (or a former Engineering Union lawyer who had once said ‘nah no worries Pike is safe’ ) is going to come along and eat the sun if it does not start pouring genetically engineered chum pet food into all our rivers because its an emergency and in an emergency the government really does believe it can damn will do what it likes (and need not follow the principles of law and natural justice) as parliament only answers to parliament.

As I keep saying and begging the public to understand this sick joke is way BIGGER !! than a jab no jab meme punch upon social media..

So whatever your position on the jabs New Zealand needs to learn the lessons of 1984, 1990 and 2004 quickly.

We need to understand this about paying attention to the very large stable doors that are now being opened wide. Doors which once opened can not be shut so easily again which empower those who seek to undermine democracy and pour horse manure all over it. Which by this point you have read this far is not a theoretical case of if’s buts or maybe is in fact documented in ad nausea as being actual realities. Ook Ook hail to the chimp.

By contrast the entrenching provision in the 1956 and 1993 Electoral Acts would be repealed and thus no longer offered protective provisions aimed at preserving democratic checks and balances. In both cases a simple majority vote of the party in charge of the house had being suffice to knock out these legislative body guards which had being put their as constitutional protectors.

Yet even if that was accepted as a matter of legitimate law (based on things being done at less by the letter of the law) convention strongly supported the protection in the name of democracy and the spirit in which laws must be passed based on good governance and natural justice. In doing so parliament was in the first case overriding the habeas corpus clauses of article 29 our English statutes, which go to the heart of our individual rights, which made clear such rights should not be “outlawed” without lawful judgment of peers, or by the law of the land. I lawyer might call me out on this one but it strike me the repeal of legislation that protects the laws that safe guard democracy should have being a judicial review decision and not a call parliament should have being able to make.

In the second count the 1993 repeals were in fact done by a government operating outside the boundaries of it jurisdiction who were using a legal fiction that was the equivalent of “Marty” McFly jumping in his DeLorean in 1986 flying to 1993 to pass a law which would then permit it to fly back to 1986 and break the law legally and thus defy the natural laws of physics and will as the natural a laws of justice. It simply can’t be done. But nice try Marty.

The overwhelming public commentary to the proposed Bill of Rights 1990 , preceded by the 1986 Constitution Act, at the time made clear the government’s voiced the opinion that such an entrenched constitutional status could be achieved both in law and as a matter of convention, only if there was clear public support for that step. A statute of this nature is of such major significance that there needs to be a general consensus amongst the public (and yet the actual 86 legislation would not receive the same treatment). Again however, the argument which on the surface of it sounds very democratic (as is always the nature of Neoliberalism where the headlines simply don’t match the gobbly gook fine print) was in reality skirting the issue and misleading the public. So no, while the public really does not want an overly powerful court neither do we want a supreme Banana republic junta parliament, a power that has empowered itself and does not answer to the people. Not withstanding the promised legislation to protect rights simply never materialised. We the people were duped right proper gov.

And yet that’s what Labour had done by replicating Muldoon’s loading up of the apple cart with a promise it will hitch the horse later on, compounded by the passing of further legislation which gave the ‘Queen’ power she never had or that might fail to materialise due to a lack of majority support in the house and not simply due to the majority of the party.

But don’t just believe me on this outstanding claim;

Margaret Wilson the Attorney General for Labour would during the battle for the TPPA later admitted the Neo Liberal had not followed the rules and in doing so had snuck through a very silent revolution. Wilson’s confession gives further evidence to the current illegitimacy of our constitutional arrangement and Parliament assertion it has supreme sovereignty. [47]

Williams writes Fitzgerald v. Muldoon. “We should be thankful that Mr Fitzgerald and his counsel, Mr Barton, have reminded us of the Bill of Rights (1689) and of the principle that Ministers ought to serve the Crown according to the laws.” That is, ministers should not and can not bend the laws to serve themselves. As the Tui advert goes Yeah Right! [48]

Sources 31-48:

31 David Parker Attorney General Parker’s address to the Auckland District Law Society, 11 May 2018 s

32- 33 Ibid.

34. The 9th Floor RNZ 5 May 2017.

35.Clark defends refusal to meet hikoi New Zealand Herald 5 May, 2004.

36. Helen Clark: No regrets over Foreshore and Seabed RNZ 5 May 2017.

+37. New Zealand Legal History (2nd edition)

38. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Privy Council New Zealand “Members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council” Last updated: Thursday, 10 August 2017

39. Thus Speaks Qadosh Erectus  Jul 13, 2009

40. Ibid

41. Ibid Ian Wishart NZ’s dirtiest political secret:

42. Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others [1976] 2 NZLR 615 at 616.3. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/1977/3.pdfTO REMIND PEOPLE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 Williams D Monash University Law Review Vol 3 June 19774.

43. Ibid.

44. Ibid Wishart.

45. Keith, K J — “Concerning Change: the Adoption and Implementation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990” [2000] VUWLawRw 37; (2000) 31 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 721

46. Ibid Fitzgerald Vs Miuldoon

47. The Struggle for Sovereignty New Zealand and Twenty-First Century Statehood (Google Books 2015). Wilson. Margaret,

48. Ibid Fitzgerald VS Muldoon

SHOW US YOUR BADGE – ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP BY USE.

SECTION B LEGITMACYOF STATE VS BILL OF RIGHTS 1688 — PT 1: 

007 & THE RAINBOW WARRIORS VS DOLORES UMBRIDGE & THE DEMENTORS OF AZKABAN
By Ben Vidgen, 

The Bill of Rights for New Zealand initially proposed in 1985 (just prior to Labour beginning its love affair with corporate globalism ) – had Labour not pulled it cart before the horse trick would have allowed judicial review of statutes by the courts and the “striking down” of bills as invalid that were determined to be inconsistent with protected rights and freedoms, as we see in countries with supreme law constitutions like the United States of America.

Academics note of this era that ‘many (without clarifying specially who or via what platform such concern were raised) expressed concern at the time over the proposed transfer of power over the substance of legislation to judges and away from elected representatives of the people of New Zealand’. ‘Many’ (including indigenous leaders, constitutional academics and liberal leaning commentators), however were also greatly concerned by the lack of due process Labour took on this issue as like Rogernomics it marketed itself as progressive but then promptly delivered the opposite of what it had promised. Oddly the academic don’t seem to dwell on that inconvenient fact

The changes to the Bill before it was passed gave it the status of an ordinary statute, with the addition of section 4, which affirms that no court may hold an enactment to be invalid or in any way ineffective on account “only” of its inconsistency with rights and freedoms. The “only” in S(4) is important. For it alludes to the possibility that a court might rule an enactment invalid or ineffective for some reason other than inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act.

In this regard there remains a fundamental ambiguity about the true scope of Parliamentary power in our constitution. The orthodoxy is that Parliament enjoys “supremacy” – in the sense that no other body has power to declare its laws invalid – but considerable doubts have been expressed as to whether this is actually true.  For example, both Lord Cooke and the previous Chief Justice have registered these doubts. And yet when Sue Grey argued that the Pfizer vaccine was intended for a whole ‘team of 5 million’ and therefore not legal to approve it under emergency use ie not a small/select group” the Crown responded by a retrospectively law change – which it can do as result of Clark 86 (?) 2004 deviation from due process.

However there do remain clear limits to the sovereignty of Parliament. These go back to the 1688 Bill of Rights and again highlight that there is division of power between Parliament and the courts. Parliament can not validly legislate away the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court or Habeas Corpus (Article 29 of the English statues) . That would exceed the sovereignty of Parliament and impinge on the powers of the court. I suspect courts emboldened and empowered by the people would be more assertive – because to be blunt my own real world experience (of court reporting from the press seat) is that I have noticed it is not unusual for judges to be more sympathetic to public causes and less aggressive depending on how many people are watching. Furthermore parliament in a modern New Zealand (‘modern’ in this context is anything after 1986) does not have sovereignty to legislate to end elections. Though it can change some aspects of voting rights. To fully understand the modern law you need to understand where they sit in terms of international law and its definition of common law.

Academic Rachel Jones writes “What, then, is the contribution of New Zealand’s common law to human rights in the constitution? Here a useful starting point is to note that English common law was always underpinned by conceptions of liberty, security and dignity of the person… Legal doctrines of contract and tort assumed personal autonomy, protecting the physical body, liberty and property” [49}.

Kent Roach, University of Toronto Law Journal, noted in turn how political theorist John Willis in 1934 wrote of a common law Bill of Rights—that NO!  common law was not simply documents of statutes (guiding principles of law)  but were discernible in the workings of everyday law in practical real terms as well. Willis challenged the notion common law rights were recognised as residual in nature— that is they what remained after statutory limits were taken into account. [50] A polite way of saying they were things judges only had to pay lip service to.

Roach ,on this point of judges paying lip service to common law right, notes how the Supreme Court of Canada had in turn been guilty of undermining common law rights as mere interpretation of statue as opposed to working acts. Roach blames this on a globalised erosion of democratic rights as Common wealth courts are bullied by Neoliberal governments into treating the rule of law of the land (via judicial reviews) as negotiable–boy does that sound familiar or what (and is a common complaint that trends in commonwealth nations who have embraced neoliberal ‘third way’ politics that surfaced in the West in the 1990’s.This being the era ‘the New Zealand Experiment’ or the ideas behind Rogernomics was exported from our universities and parliament with intent and orchestrated architecture*1

And it is an issue the Commonwealth courts need to own, and to its credit is attempting to so, For example Canada’s court has acknowledged the customary law of First Nation people and in New Zealand the Tikanga (The Maori partner in the Treaty of Waitangi to Pakeha Common Law) not just of Rangatira (Aristocratic chiefs) but hapu and whanau as well – which if nothing else shows it can be done and the courts are not as powerless as we or they themselves might think [51]

For its part, the international human rights movement post-World War II was similarly premised on distilling from all the major legal systems of the world a set of human rights, and producing a Universal Declaration of Human Rights with actual teeth. And again this goal this has being critiqued and deemed a failure due to the influence of neo-liberalism corporate lobby groups and their agents of influence who have instead undermined this process and passed the power instead onto the haves and oppose to defending the have nots.

BOND & THE RAINBOW WARRIOR VS HYDRA & THE AGENTS OF VOLDEMORT.

Rights without principles written into them, that define what constitutes ‘good governance’ ( meaning the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law is followed), are two edged swords as the violence of the French Revolution demonstrates where rights simply became tools of tyranny. As an inheritor of the British tradition, where Common Law speaks directly to the issue of good governance of ensuring the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law is pursued, New Zealand has traditionally looked to Parliament as protector rather than a threat to human rights. Certainly, all the major developments now seen as signifying human rights progressed have happened in New Zealand either sooner or not appreciably later than in states enjoying constitutional rights. Abortion was liberalized in 1977 and homosexual sex decriminalized in 1986. (51)

And the basis upon which homosexual sex was decriminalized in 1986 and why it was done is critical to the question is the state now over reaching its authority.

Which takes us back to 1688 and the question of do we or do we not have inalienable rights? Does Her Majesty Service work for us all the time (and is the license 24/7 365). Or is 007 just a hit man for parliament as the Borris Johnston’s & Adern of our world maintain. Or does he work to uphold the public rights (as in every one rights not just the special few) just when it suits parliament and its imaginary Queen.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 seems to think 007 works for all us. That 007 is a public servant of the people who serves without prejudice or select favour when it issued an official apology to those convicted, and passed legislation which sets out a process for reversing the convictions of those convicted, both living and deceased in a manner which upholds the mana and dignity of those convicted. The Justice and Electoral Committee of the 51st Parliament was still considering the petition on 28 June 2017 when the Government Bill was introduced to the House. On 6 July 2017, the Government issued a formal apology to all those convicted and referred the bill to the committee. The bill so it was argued in parliament before being passed relates to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). [51]

The Preamble of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) refers to recognition of the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” being the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. It also states that recognition of these rights “derive from the inherent dignity of the human person”. [52]

Article 2 of the ICCPR provides for State Parties to respect and ensure to all individuals the rights recognised in the Covenant “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” The Article is largely repeated in Article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).  In addition to these articles, several of the 2006 Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity directly relate to the legislation. These include:

Principle 1: The Right to Universal Enjoyment of Human Rights. Clause 3 of the Act describes the purpose of the bill “is to reduce prejudice, stigma and all other negative effects, arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence” by the expungement. In other words, it aims to restore to those convicted for historical homosexual offences their inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights as members of the human family. [52]

Analysis of the three readings of the Bill (6/7/2017; 27/3/2018;iii 3/4/2018iv) from Hansard debates reveals a number of indirect references to human rights and four explicit references to inalienable rights.

For example Jan Logie (Green) described the men whose lives had been ruined by conviction and described the past policy as “the State’s institutionalised homophobia”. To those men who were criminalised and irreparably hurt and who have been left, in the words of one submitter, with “self-hatred, worthlessness, unjustified guilt and shame” , I want to say clearly, on behalf of the Green Party, that the shame does not belong with you. The shame belongs with the Parliament and our society for robbing you of your inherent and inalienable rights. [53]

So now we have inalienable right and now we don’t??

The 1990 Bill of Rights while ‘freeing us from the tyranny of judges (who may dare question whether the spirit of the law was being followed and not just the letter of the law) instead has given us the tyranny of parliament who decide what the letter of the law means concerning human rights as determined by one party or even a coalition of minority parties as it see fits. It has taken our inalienable rights and replaced them with ‘rights’ that are at Parliaments bidding alone. So thus Parliament need not rule with consistency but can punish and reward as it likes.

This was done in accordance with the United Nations definition of rights to which were ratified signatories but even that was debatable. An illustration of the United Nations definition of rights occurred on December 14, 1960 when the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples thereby recognizing the “sovereignty of a subjugated people. United Nations (“U.N.”) members stated that “all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty, and the integrity of their national territory” and customary rights [54].

DO AS WE SAY NOT AS WE DO & THE DELIMEA OF NATION HOOD.

This gets down to an interesting point on what a nation is, and what is a state. While a state may be a nation, a nation need not be a state. An issue which again asks what are the limits of the state power to have supreme sovereignty.

And to just ram home the assault that our own courts find themselves under in 2018 The Justice Minister Andrew Little, now our Attorney General, stood before the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) in Geneva and stated “It’s fair to say that our justice system is broken,” Mr Little a former rep for the same Union that said Pike River was safe prior to its killing 29 (and Little himself being fast tracked for leadership of Labour prior to a trade off with Adern which left him in charge of the Pike River recovery), going on to suggest that New Zealand is also failing its women and indigenous population and need the protection of United Nation member states to bring NZ up to par with the ‘civilised’ world.

The civilised world in this case included a tribunal of three nation states of Iran, Russia, Indonesia and Egypt, who are among blameless nation states represented at the forum to criticise New Zealand’s human rights record. Iran, a nation state who has the penalty for homosexuality as death, for example said New Zealand needs a better strategy to thwart “religious hatred” and racism.

Point aside I do believe the anti mandate Freedom camp best be clear (if they seek credibility and sympathy for their cause ) that they better get the golden law, the only law that matters morally, is that rights are for everyone not just rights for the people who hold the same values as  face in the mirror or in Brian’s case who want the Lord to buy them a Mercedes Benz, ‘cos all their friends drive Porsche and they want to make amends’.

The homophobic Tamaki’s had pushed their way to the front of the Freedom movement, along with folk like NZPP’s Billy Te Kahia and Kelvyn Alp with their links to Neo Nazis and the CIA (also a feature of Sue Greys Out Door Party). All of these elements bray for their rights but seem to forget everyone entitled to rights. Their bigotry and apparent self entitlement makes them a lightening rod for the left and a media keen to polarise society while making zero attempt to give those critical of the government position a chance to have their say. For lets not forget that docked along side Right wing media moguls, mining magnates and the financial donor of Donald Trump at Auckland’s via duct were the left wing tech lords.

Ditto post March 15th 2019 it became fashionable for young woman on campus to wear Hajb (whether Islamic or not), taking their cur from Prime Minister and Public Relation expert Jacinda Adern as as media personalities soothed in saccharine tones “they are are us” (marking their hypocrisy by using the word “they” instead of “we”) but no one addressed Islam own intolerance of the rainbow community. Or the fact that had the shooting not taken place the probable media spotlight would have being New Zealand’s role in war crimes – part of the legacy of the war wages under the flimsy pretext of stamping our terrorism following 9/11 and the two decades in which western governments virtually encouraged Islamophobia.

In my last project with own version of Obelix Vinny Eastwood I had the opportunity to discuss this with the president of the Al Noor Mosque Mohammed Khan. That fantastic interview has being pulled after Vinny took the NZPP and Stace’s CIA affiliated money veered right and ultimate fell on his own sword and walked into a censorship ambush of his own making. A fact which upsets me when I considered the great work I did with Vinny when I first joined forces with him attacking John Key’s/Helen Clark’s pro corporate TPPA.

In that interview the incredibly honest and brave Mr Khan admitted the real conversation between cultures had only begun and that work and tolerance was needed on from both sides. And this author personally believes that left to our own devices us every day imperfect peasants can get their, given time and a whole lot talking. The problem is the civilised world ad our better keeps stepping into save us (even though they are the one who send young folk to die in wars based on commerce and greed) as the modern and equally hypocritical media machine gives oxygen to those who would rather focus on our differences than out common hoods.

The actual UN human rights review of the New Zealand’s justice system is being currently overseen by a tribunal of three blameless nation states of Brazil, Slovakia, and Saudi Arabia, known as the Troika. This is despite the latter Arab kingdom also being widely criticised over its treatment of women and human rights record. [56] Which includes the assassination of journalist Jamal Kashoggi whose body was dismembered with a bone saw and hidden for the crime of exposing that the UNDP (during the era Helen Clark headed the UNDP), Lockheed Martin weapons manufacture, backed Arab Vision 2030 was not as it was being marketed to the world in no small part due to the efforts of Helen Clark UNDP (which would be subject to allegations of grafts and corruption). That Vision 2030 was not as it claimed abut creating
serious reforms to bring Saudi Arabia’s democracy up to par with human rights and women rights. Rather Kashoggi was murdered for exposing that the Helen Clark UNDP backed Vision 2030 program was actually a tool for continued oppression of human rights and for advancing the sales of weapons used to commit genocide and inflame war to the delight of weapons manufactures like Lockheed Martin. [57].

In a similar vein Qatar and the Emirates also backers of Adern/Helen Clark Foundation Christchurch Calls move to enhance tech based censorship of social media. [58]

This would be sold as countering hate and abuse of minorities and it cames as the CEO of Emirates Airlines the principal sponsors of Team Emirates (which Helen Clark is a patron of) was revealed as having kidnapped his two daughters one off the street of London in broad daylight the other at sea using armed commandos in an act of brazen piracy[59]. It comes as it is revealed that New Zealand is supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and Emirates used to engage in genocide [60].

That includes weapons from New Zealand so much for our leaders love of human rights.

As for the idea it takes an increasingly privatised UN supported by Juntas overseen by homophobic tyrants and card carrying members of SPECTRE (men only women need not apply) to bring justice to New Zealand’s indigenous people, and the down trodden Father Professor Robert Arajua would debate this*1.

Arajua, an expert in International Law, is not a fan of the modern U.N. which he sees as increasingly being an agent of neoliberalism that seeks to centralise power and defang the meaning of the word inalienable rights as is happening in New Zealand as well.*1   

1*Funded in turn by oligarchs who use progressive causes strategically to further their own causes as they simultaneously can be found in bed with the military industrial complex and even neoconservatives as it suits them. For example another support of Clarks Chch call supporters is Pierre Morad Omidyar can be found using his empire to mutually fund the left and right interest groups as it suits his economic interest.

Arajua notes “When criticism is made of sovereignty in this day and age, it does not seem to take account of those sovereignties that rest in the nation, that is, the people themselves. If, indeed, some people are interested in the protection of human rights, they must also take account of the fact that the right of political, cultural, and social self-determination is inextricably related to people exercising sovereignty. Efforts made to curtail this kind of sovereignty would deleteriously affect the exercise and protection of a wide variety of human rights” [61].

THATS THE PROBLEM WHATS THE SOLUTION.

PRIOR TO THE FLAG REFERENEDUM THE WORDS ON THE PARLIAMENTARY WEBSITE, BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED, EXPLAINED WHAT THE UNION JACK (SEAL OF THE [MAGNA CARTA] COMMONWEALTH) MEANT SAID ‘ITS THERE TO REMIND US OUR DEMOCRATIC TRADITIONS” Common Law & Tikanga Customary Rights are woven into our constitutional documents extensively.

This again has interesting ramification concerning New Zealand’s own constitutional crisis and what to do about it.

The first steps simple you only listen to those who acknowledge rights and aroha (love) for all not just some.

The second solution lies in the question of what is nationhood. And in New ealand/ Aoteroa that question is central to defending our inalienable rights. It is no less than a Expecto Patronum (to use another Hogwartz apology) a shielding spell that protects its citizen’s inalienable rights.

By Father Professor Robert Arajua definition a sovereign nation (as opposed to a nation state) is a community be it the community of iwi, Hapu or Whanu of people who exercise shared values concerning human dignities that shape and direct the particulars of their communitarian self-determination.

This point can in fact be reinforced by the King George 1835 ensign which predate the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, in terms of 007 (Her Majesty Service) recognition of Maori Sovereignty. Yet this declaration does not take away from the relationship of the partnership between Tikianga and Pakeha Commonwealth as equals which comes with the Treaty of Waitangi 1840. It has become acceptable within activism circles as supported by footage of Ihumatao, TPPA marches groundswell and Freedom for the 1840 & 1835 to fly next to each other with seniority usually given to 1835 as the senior flag on the basis it came first. 1835 increasingly replaces the popularity and declining mana of the 1986 Tino Rangatiratanga (the UN Corso Flag) which the government admits does not carry official status and has no whakapapa or legal legitimacy inside or outside of New Zealand (62)

There’s is a legitimate debate to had over whether 1835 ensign variant (version in fact date back to 1833 at least and reflect additional iwi and hapu) is in fact the founding document in that flags are symbols of constitutional mechanics and this flag was recongised by admiralty law as New Zealand’s flag and its known to have being used on Pakeha and Maori owned vessels who traded with Sydney and the American English dominated financiers of the Sydney cartels who financed New Zealand whaling and land grabs (63) which in turn can be affiliated to such foreign speculators including Admiral Sir Hugh Palliser (who commissioned James Cook transit of Venus journey to New Zealand 1769) (64). One such member of this cartel, to high light another aspect of the history and origin of our national symbols, was  Johnny Jones founder of the BNZ. Jone’s Dunedin mansion built on Fern Hill (in fact rebuilt after he purchased it off Wakefield Company affiliate Captain E. H. W. Bellaira a volunteer regiment Captain also suspected of arming set hapu with native muskets (weapons which according to the Riverton museum in Southland were deliberately not as superior to British military weapons) to assist the land grabbing aspirations (65) Fern Hill would come 31 years prior to the Silver fern being trade marked in 1885 (66). It’s here it enters a revised lexicon created by the Satachi Satchi New Zealand story (66) which gave birth to the myth of the Silver Fern (as favoured by ex New York merchant banker and Flag referendum manipulator John Key) being introduced into NZ Heritage by Ngai Tahu employees of banker Johnny Jones. Jones being the genocidal gun runner who founded the BNZ. The Elisions family of Karitane where Jones’s whaling station was founded before first being worn by players in the 1888 New Zealand Natives rugby team – whose  players included Thomas Ellson (67/68). The international whaling consortiums came prior to the lust for New Zealand’s gold would fund gold ventures such as the Wahi goldmines and speculators like Captain George Moon Light a former Scotsman and American Merchant seaman backed by America’s first merchant banks. (69/70)  The story in relation to showing what flags means historically and now as symbols of power and as symbols of one of (but not only) New Zealand’s complex constitutional mechanics is worth a further short deviation off the main topic;

Ellison family and tribe had worked for Jones dating back to his gunrunning flax days in his original headquarters at the whaling settlement of Karitane just outside Dunedin where my family also reside and are married into the Ngai Tahu iwi led by Ellison descendants today and claim a direct tie to the story behind the silver fern. Yet to claim the Ellison introducing the silver fern to New Zealand is not 100% correct. He was not alone in this misconception today. For the fern was also a popular symbol used extensively by the old boys net work of volunteer rifles regiments (basically semi state endorse paramilitary units), which drew membership from the colonial forces and pro crown hapu who had fought in the Maori war on the side of the crown. The Nelson Evening Mail for example reported in September 1905 that the Nelson Naval and Nelson Rifles Association “was held at the N.C.O’s Club Rooms last evening. The President (Ex-Captain .C. Y. ■Effi) presided, and their was a good-attendance of members; _ .. The Secretary produced a sample hat badge he had obtained from London. The badge had the name of the Association on top, the year it was established, also & a crown and two crossed fern”

This is not to say the fern is not part of the New Zealand story. Yet its origins have being tweaked, while in contrast the story of the 1835 ensign and what it means in term of being one of the major cords to endorse the power of Tikanga (customary rights) has being under sold by a neoliberal status quo. One keen to under mine the ‘common’ law rights of first nation people around the world as the UN similarly perverted system seeks to sell the lie it cares about indigenous people rights as long as those rights are not inalienable rights.

On 20 March 1834, 25 Far North chiefs (who if I am reading correctly came from five iwi and 25 hapu – later extend to eight iwi and around 54 hapu as picked by the confederation on 20 March 1834) and their followers gathered at Busby’s residence at Waitangi to choose a flag to represent New Zealand.  A number of missionaries, settlers and the commanders of 10 British and three American ships were also in attendance to document and over see not the birth of state but official recognition of Māori nations (Iwi hapu) celebrated with a 21 gun salute by the British warship HMS Alligator that had being despatched by King William IV. The King (via Westminster) approved the rejigged flag (which included new hapu and iwi signatures), a drawing of which was circulated via the Admiralty with instructions it was to be recognised as the New Zealand’s flag. (71)

The United Tribes flag was significant in that Britain had recognised New Zealand as an independent nation with its own flag, and in doing so, had acknowledged the mana of the Māori chiefs who signed it.

1840 also acknowledged the Maori Sovereignty (article two) and is the second authentication of customary rights. 1840 which went beyond the northern tribes. So if 1835 marks when the nation of ‘New Zealand’ was born 1840 marks when the nation state of New Zealand/Aotearoa came into being. Yet the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which is founding document of the state, gave both Maori and Pakeha protection of common law rights and thus it makes the third authentication of indigenous sovereignty. Or to use a military term it provided defence in depth, of if not all kiwis then at the very less citizens of Maori descent. Which in New Zealand, to point that remark in context, makes up over 95% of New Zealanders who are seven generation decedents of the intermarriage related partnership of pakeha settlers and iwi hapu and whanau. And if that is not a blood contract what is. New Zealand/Aotearoa, as the legendary Fred Dagg the political satirist used to say “your really don’t know how lucky your are”.

Really you say how come?

Because in other words the UN/TPPA and it arm of professional lobbyist and spin doctors can just keep their blood soaked sticky SPECTRE pussy paws to them themselves- for the iwi, hapu, and whanau, have tikanga customary rights and common law statues and thus quite capable of empowering themselves thank you very much Monsieur Little and Monsieur Secretary General Ernst Stavro Blofeld (or whoever SPECTRE puppets maybe as big business hijacks the UN initial goals of rights for all people and manipulate it to fit in line with TPPA commercial goals of rights only for corporations ).

All we need now is the court to choose to recognise and empower those common law rights (not the Bill of Rights 1990 – which is simply a ‘false flag’).

And a judicial review is probably the best way to make that happen. As a mean of achieving recognition of Common law rights via recognition that customary rights in fact already have existing precedent in our courts. Just to show this is not just a gobbly gook idea but is something the courts have already done demonstrating Roach’s idea that common laws are not simply documents of statutes (guiding principles of law)  but are discernible in the workings of everyday law in practical real terms as well as giving the judiciary the power with out needing parliament permission to do so.

Mirma Broughton hammers this point home in the Maori Law Review, when citing her own concern that the Constitutional Advisory Panel (which utterly omits common law the Pakeha equivalent of customary rights), the panel made up of corporate assassins of SPECTRE (that is they were pro TPPA and in several cases also has links to those who sat on John Keys Flag Panel) acknowledged the soverign rights of Rangatira [chiefs] but not the sovereignty of Whanu or Hapu to whom tikanga also applies – as we can see by the fact the treaty and 1835 declaration of nation hood was signed  by leaders of hapu (not just Iwi) and has been recognised in New Zealand courts [62].

“In my view, a constitution includes a hapū, whānau, iwi and Crown relationship. The Constitutional Advisory Panel terms of reference seem to exclude a constitutional model based on these relationships and the development of a tikanga-based constitution. Recent court decisions appear to indicate some movement or a willingness by some members of the judiciary to recognise tikanga as law. And yet the terms of reference for the panel don’t seem to recognise this. From my experience, there are fundamental changes that need to take place within university law schools to more accurately reflect the relationship between tikanga, Te Tiriti and Crown law.”

The court has the power to do this. And if we look at the cases of the TPPA concerning both Canada and now New Zealand, it is clear that customary rights of first nation people do fit within a Common law frame as well in the reference of every day working law (and not just principles) in practical terms as well.

We the people simply need to make clear we will in turn recognise the courts authority to act without parliaments permission when asking courts to make their ruling in terms of Common Law rights (in relation to actual right not commercial disputes) or indigenous customary right in accordance with the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (& 1835 declaration of nation) signed not just by Iwi but by over 954 separate hapu and the Palace of Westminster (Her Majesty Service [007] – as opposed to the pleasure of specific monarchs [SPECTRE]) which promised sovereignty and autonomy of nations and not just nation states.

You don’t need permission for rights the yours – you just need the determination to exercise them – that is your established badge of ownership.

So use it or loose it.

But we also need to show common sense in that common law is as much about our obligation as its about rights. Just because we have rights is not a license to kill the rights of others. Under common law we have right of body integrity it does not mean the right to run red traffic lights, or do donuts on the front lawn of parliament (as fun as that might be). And in the discernment if rights its a two way street judges must not just look to the letter of the law visa common law rights but apply them in the context of the spirt of law and the principles of natural justice as well. And we the people must do the same.

The common law social contract when all is said and done is not just a collective contract its a karmic (Dharma/ Brehon) contract and it requires give and take and giving respect to all. Which can be summed up easily. Don’t be a dick.

THE OBLIGATION TO NOT BE A DICK.

Here’s why “four officers refused vaccination and lost their jobs at the end of September. Their lawyer, Sue Grey, said they had medical and other reasons for refusing. They claimed the order limited rights and freedoms contained in the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights and that the limits were not reasonable, prescribed by law, and shown to be justified in a free and democratic society. The rights and freedoms said to be included were the right to refuse medical treatment, not to be subject to medical or scientific experimentation, and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Grey said the vaccine order should have made allowance for border workers to apply for exemptions”. 

The ins and out of Sue Grey’s argument I will leave to lawyers to pick over.

Yet Sue Grey (whose not my favourite cup of tea I admit) scored one major point when she argued that the Pfizer vaccine was not intended for a whole ‘team of 5 million’ and therefore it was not legal to approve it under emergency use as five million “was not a small/select group”

This is withstanding that the ethics of that point and how it was and is being implemented also breached the basic medical ethic norms and those established by the Nuremburg Code set up following the grisly eugenic based experiments of the Nazis ( truly one history most notorious bunch of dicks).

Those codes are not actual law in New Zealand. Yet they do set the gold standard for do and don’t visa medical experimentation which basically the MRNA is as (but more on that point later). It is based on most of the major powers constitutional charters and their founding documents. And it is certainly referred to both in and outside of New Zealand. It has being for over 50 years a recognised roadmap for ethical and human ethical values.

So on this this point the Crown responded with the kind of retrospective law change that Boris Johnston desires ( See Brexit Johnston & Muldoon Vs Fitzgerald ) so he can get around parliament’s obligation to follow the rule of the land that you and I are expected to follow. Yes the crown once more got in their supreme power legislative empowered DeLorean and flew back in time – which in New Zealand they can do as result of Clark 1986 2004 unchallenged ( the sense of not put before legal review), deviation from due process. Where the powers that be simply ignored the inconvenient truth (or at least once was a given truth) that yes even governments under common law are expect to follow the same law we mere peasants are expected to follow.

And yet to be my own devils advocate to address the karmic duty not to be a dick do we really want our borders staffed by, what ever the vaccine own safety issue be, the ‘unprotected’ 

On that point I wonder personally why out side the issue of legal defence visa vaccine mandates and disease transmission safety emphasis had not been placed, in terms of work and safety requirement, on the need not just for vaccine’s to be safe but for

1.Greater and quicker testing to be made available within the work place.
2. Greater use of technology (as used in Japan and in our hospital now – see below) which helped greatly reduce cross contamination and the changes of infection that come with it. 3.Greater publicity of preventive medicine strategies.

These factors would also if dealt with reduce the threat of transmission and along with it the risk posed by non vaccinated.

Law is about challenge and response aimed at seeking remedy between parties it need not be adversarial and while Grey’s case focused on unvaxed workers right it offered little in the way of solution or remedy to ensure unvaxed rights did not infringe on others.  Remember when dealing with rights the rule is rights for all not just some and don’t be a dick.       

Yet I also remain vexed (as a constitutionalist) as to why Grey and other lawyers chose to fight for their rights fighting on BORA 1990. This is simply helping sell the legal fiction of parliament supremacy and a Post 1990 concept of International law as favoured by nations like Saudi Arabia, Emirates, and Russia. Those who with the governments permission have being invited to lecture us on human rights records as favoured by oligarchs and dictators who can be documented using all evasive digital tracking technology to chop up those who expose their tyranny, sociopathic homophobia, violent myogenic and that thy don’t recognise actual inalienable right (a right which can not be withdrawn or surrendered) as they kidnap, torture, bomb and brutally murder on a grand scale. Their criticism and our government’s invitation to have these states attack our courts is blatant evidence of just how insane things have become. The principals of natural justice when all is said and done is as I say repeatedly based on common sense and not being a dick. 

And that two of those parties also happen to be funding a serving Privy Councillor (who engineered the subversion of parliaments role to serve the people and not itself) personal think tank does not add to the picture that common sense is winning. Especially when they are funding her think tank so as to empower her ability to continue to meddle in New Zealand democracy long after her elected term has expired. 

Sue Grey’s who like Brian Tamaki has political aspirations court case in that context really is the 5th column. In that its aimed at misdirecting motivated citizenry to pursue a fools crusade and following false prophets which simply lends legitimacy to a lie via an act of pantomime. This appears to be something Sue Grey excels in if we look at her role of taking it upon her self, Helen Clark style, to invite the off shore INTJ (International Tribunal of Natural Justice) in 2019 to also come and critique the New Zealand system instead on inviting Kiwi of mana, respected by Kiwi on both side of the political domain to form a common law court made up of peers. Her actions were no different than Andrew Little when all is said and done.

We don’t need outside help or for that matter political parties to solves the problem (has not exactly worked so far has it) we just need to exercise those rights in four practical ways;

1. Collective action were as nation be it the whanu (family), hapu (community), or iwi ( a confederation or alliance of tribes) you simply fly those constitutional mechanics and defer to them when challenged by authorise.

2. Petitioning the court for judicial review citing the customary or common law rights.

3. Educating others of their rights and how they may be exercised and strengthened by collective action.

4. Empowering each other and insuring your voice is not tainted by some one else agenda – a practical and beautiful example of that was a protest I went to in Invercargill which outside of the national flags. It had almost zero Trump flags, no political party or church banners, no patches, it just was ordinary kiwi exercising their free speech with zero hint of violence and for the record was made up of three separate iwi, Christian, atheist, rainbow community members, pakeha including kiwi, Hungarians, Czechoslovakian, Germans, plus included members of the Indian and even Chinese community. It was an old school New Zealand and I loved it ordinary every day people recognising each other rights and standing up for each other rights and every one who had something to say got a chance to say it.

WTO TPPA WORLD WITHOUT WALLS REPACKAGED AS UN CLIMATE CHANGE PREVENTINGGLOBALMIGRATION PACT –MORE NEOLIBERAL SPIN & LEGISLATIVE SNEAKINESS.

Kate Floss, who in her own words is just a “ordinary Kiwi”, with a voice and working class mannerism like Coronations Hilda Ogden is as smooth as finger nails on a chalk board, Yet has also seen through what Grey missed that the 1990 Bill of Right and Little’s apparent grand sham of the need for a Declaration of Inconsistency is another knife in democracy’s back.

I owe eagle eyes Kate with her voice like gravel an apology. She might is working class rough as guts (even rougher than me and my Benglish), not very PC but time and time again she spots what far more refined and rarefied experts have missed or wont say for lack of spine. Don’t go changing Kate maybe its time the pointy headed academics learn a bit of respect for the ‘ordinary kiwi’ who they keep trying to sell short at their own expense.

Yes Kate is a god bother seems to be a fan of Brian Tamaki (My one big X against her) and yes Kate talks about keeping “foreigner out”*1 . So on the surface her mannerism are cringe worthy and that makes her an easy target except Kate is actually not racist, being pro Maori sovereignty and happy to live among Asian in Indonesia and happy to even stick up for the “homos” rights as well.

Get past the Hilda Ogden veneer and she is talking simply about a right of nation and its people to retain sovereign control. So as a self confessed heathen I baulk at the idea of “getting god back into parliament” (be it a Christian god or the flying spaghetti monster god) until I take that sentiment and review in the context of what ‘gods law’ means in legal constitutional terms. Where it simply means common law rights created at the time when he Christ was the big swizzle on the stick among the super powers of that era.

So as I explained previously Gods law means it is not enough to have rights following the letter of the law as defined at whim of control freaks but laws must follow the spirt of the law if we are have to have good governance. A term meaning simply our laws a based on the principals of natural justice and we must have inalienable rights (executed via the Karmic principles of Dharma or Brehon Laws for all the nations citizens and not just some based on the favour and taste of the ruling elite. Kate will never be a hipster as she is as cool as a 1970 state house painted snifter green but she’s also dead right bless her ordinary straight shooting kiwi-ness.

*1 See A Word With Out Borders/Global Migration Pact

Love or hate her it was Kate who noted the amendment for Attorney-General to notify Parliament of declaration of inconsistency 92WA “92 J” is actually not listed in the bill and is in fact 92 J of the Human Rights Bill (73) and the Tribunal being referred to is not a New Zealand Tribunal but a New York based tribunal of the United Nations. Kate does a separate video where she goes into to section 191a of the 1993 Human Rights Act. It is suffice to say her point is confirmed by Andrew Little’s UN Troika review of our courts. Which ultimately seeks to put our top judges out of job and that is if they are lucky. 

Attorney-General to notify Parliament of declaration of inconsistency

(1)

This section applies if a declaration made under section 92J (by the Tribunal, or by a senior court on an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal) becomes final because

A) )no appeals, or applications for leave to appeal, against the making of the declaration are lodged in the period for lodging them; or

b)all lodged appeals, or applications for leave to appeal, against the making of the declaration are withdrawn or dismissed.

(2)

The Attorney-General must present to the House of Representatives, not later than the sixth sitting day of the House of Representatives after the declaration becomes final, a notice bringing the declaration to the attention of the House of Representatives.

And so now when a Judge findings makes declaration of inconsistency on BORA (so far our judges are not being that dumb) it is dealt with by 92J (which as clever Kate note this crucial point is left out of Kris Faa Foi bill ) of the Human Rights Bill. (74)

Remedy for enactments in breach of Part 1A

(1) If, in proceedings before the  Human Rights Review Tribunal,  the Tribunal finds that an enactment is in breach of Part 1A, the  only remedy that the Tribunal may grant is the declaration referred to in subsection (2).

(2) The declaration that may be granted by the Tribunal, if subsection (1) applies,  is a declaration that the enactment that is the subject of the finding is inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination affirmed by section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

(3)The Tribunal may not grant a declaration under subsection (2) unless that decision has the support of all or a majority of the members of the Tribunal.

(4) Nothing in this section affects the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Section 92J: inserted, on 1 January 2002, by section 9 of the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 (2001 No 96). (75)

The Troika to keep it simple are a nastier version of Sue Grey’s invited ITNJ as lead by Saacha Stone the son of global elitist Rhodesian Sir Walter Adams (Lecturer in History at University College London.1929-1930 Rockefeller Fellow in the United States. Deputy Head of the British Political Warfare Mission in the United States. Assistant Deputy Director-General of the Political Intelligence Department of the Foreign Office. Secretary of the Inter-University Council for Higher Education in the Colonies.1955-1967: Principal of the College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. 1967-1974: Director of London School of Economics.) ,with Stone in turn backed by those with interests in mining and included the likes of the late former CIA officer David Steele*1. Albeit Little’s version of the INTJ have a bit more muscle [76]

*1 Who died being a dick.

An yet it’s also interesting to note the American intelligence/mining connections that keep popping such as Kelvyn Alps Counter Spin (which has appeared on tech lord Steven Bannon Trumps chief backer network), whose partner in Phoenix Gold in the Solomon Islands is Leon Kelly a former CIA analyst .[77]

Or alternatively it can be tied to the New Zealand old boy network or funders of Donald Trump and his QAnon style guerrilla warfare which Privy Councillor Winston Peters demonstrated he wished to parody in 2020 when he hired the service of Arron Banks and Andy Wigmour ‘the bad boys of Brexit. The duo used Bond like villainy in the form of manipulating software to hijack social media and influence democracy – (cos nothing say there’s a Politician/Privy Councillor who respects the principle of natural justice as hiring cyber goons to try and steal an election) [78]. Bear in mind this is a move Peter’s stooped to after burning his credibility with voters one too many times as like Labour he promised no to the TPPA and then went right along with it. Peter’s proving once more he ran with the kind of people who will have you believe parliament alone wields the precious ring of power and that they are worthy of such pubic trust. The indications are that Cambridge Analytics/ Qanon psychological manipulation of the voters in 2023 will be targeting those disenfranchised with the state of democracy in New Zealand many remembering the betrayal of both New Zealand First and Labour in 2017.

The danger here is if that allowed to succeed the new grass roots that have grown out of the anti TPPA movement and moved toward pro QANON style politics may vote in saviours who deliver them even more draconian measures. As come election time they like wise turn on their word and replicate what Neoliberal Labour did when they promised to get rid of the TPPA (which Helen Clark introduced as she dismantled the Privy Council Appeal process by deviation of due process in 2008) if voted in and they then promptly signed it once elected. It no small thing when you look at the new ‘improved’ Clark model to see major leaders of both Labour and National inner party buried at its heart. Those who own record of not comprehending boundaries and conflict of interest speaks for itself. New Zealand’s own left winged right winged two faced deep state.

On this point NICHOLAS LEVIS writing for the liberal based Counter Punch notes

“Conspiracy panic is a propaganda weapon that props up an overall portrayal of the mass of the people (and especially critics of the ideological hegemony, of whatever stripe, good or bad) as ipso-facto stupid, preemptively discredited, crazy, irrational, unworthy of participation in discourse, and potentially dangerous. Conspiracy panic nowadays is a go-to for liberals to deny and distract and divert potentially radical struggles into incremental bullshit. That way they need think less about systemic irrationality, falsehood, evils, and failures, and how most of the unfolding disasters — including Trump himself — are not aberrations or surprises but predictable products of the “American way” and the global capitalist system. It’s easier and more comforting to affect being appalled at the stupidity of QAnon (or the supposed millions who were moved to vote for Trump only because they saw a “Russian” post online), and to virtue-signal that you are different from the dumb right-wing patsies who eat that shit up, than to spend too much time being aware that the billionaire and corporate and ensconced policy-making ruling class as a whole — their names are known and plastered in the headlines — is by definition a predator class, professionally incapable of mercy, with overwhelming power over the rest of us, acting in ways that guarantee capitalism and its “ways of life” will continue burning the planet, literally, until the ecosystem’s capacity to sustain the present human civilization and population collapses. Which, speaking in historical lengths, is imminent, and possibly no longer reversible. Fight this anyway. [79]

New Zealand is not America and the methodology/solution is in accordance with Father Professor Robert Arajuas assessment of a right of a nation (and not just the nation state) to determine its own sovereignty and is also affirmed by the examples given by Mirma Broughton when taking the Constitutional Advisory Panel to task over it’s lack of recognition of the right of not just Rangatira but also the right of hapu and whanau. While it was the view of the Green Party that rights of dignity were inalienable rights when Logie quite correctly expressed why government have no right to withdraw those rights or persecute those who chose to exercise those rights. You can’t have it both ways.

Nevis is highlighting what dawned on the middle class semi educated classes for few seconds in 2010 when Julian Assange exposed via his data dumps that there really was a deep state. Sadly that realisation was short lived as the Weapon of Mass Distraction Donald Trump (the ultimate Straw man) hijacked the term and made it absurd. Meanwhile the left and right wing politics became increasingly polarised and reactionary so that the fact the wealth and power was rapidly and radically being centralised by a few at the expense of the many was lost in all the noise and misinformation being bounced around the globe. More often than not by very well financed sugar daddies of Neoliberal or Neo Conservative elements who seemed to oppose each other as they however continued to share economically the same ‘right wing’ (corporate driven) politics that endorsed the TPPA.

Nevis says this can not be fought. Is this really true?
The two examples say NO! to this kind of defeatism ;

1) The first nation people of Canada calling the TPPA out in 2017 as a constitutional breech (just as I had said it could happen in my 2016 Due Authority blog (with the Greens admitting after the fact that yes the TPPA was a constitutional issue) as the Indian’s were empowered by a Common Wealth courts recognised their sovereignty and customary (common)rights of first nation people to self determine their own fate and course.

2.) The (Waitangi) Tribunal agreeing that the successor to the TPPA, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), breached the Crown’s obligations to Maori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and failed to protect Maori customary (common) rights and interests in data and the digital domain.

These show it can be done and how it can be done in terms of not just fighting the TPPA but in terms of challenging parliament supremacy and the incorrect view rights are not inalienable.

Now lets talk about what rights actually are and the kind of rights that exist and by whose authority those rights exist.

Human rights & Free Choice of Medical Provider — Two key international documents protect these rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also requires protection of physical and mental integrity. The Human Rights and Constitutional Rights project, funded by Columbia Law School, has defined four main areas of potential bodily integrity abuse by governments. These are: Right to Life, Slavery and Forced Labour, Security of One’s Person, Torture and Inhumane, Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 17 and the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states the following: “No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”. [80]

It is interesting to note those arguing for and against vaccines keep arguing the right of scientific medical experimentation and clashing over whether the covid vaccine (especially Pfizer brand) is an experiment but they actually miss out the key point.

Namely the right to say no to any form of medical treatment is pretty much the back bone of any constitutional charter or doctrine of ethics you care to look at worldwide.

In fact the United Nations Population Fund report ‘Bodily autonomy: Busting 7 myths that undermine individual rights and freedom itself notes this when talking of of body autonomy and human rights,

Myth 1: Bodily autonomy is a Western concept. “Bodily autonomy is about the right to make decisions over one’s own life and future. It is about being empowered to make informed choices. These are universal values.  Governments everywhere have committed, in a variety of international agreements, to protecting autonomy. Respect for autonomy is a core tenet of international medical ethics. And we must not overlook the incredible efforts to secure bodily autonomy being led by advocates all over the world.” 

Myth 2: There is no right to bodily autonomy. “Not only is bodily autonomy a human right, it is the foundation upon which other human rights are built”

Myth 3: Bodily autonomy represents radical individualism; it undermines group decision-making. “Collective decision-making is common across cultures, societies and governments. But group decisions cannot circumscribe the rights of individuals”. 

Myth 4: One person’s bodily autonomy could end up undermining the autonomy of others.

“Having bodily autonomy does not mean any person gets to undermine the health, rights or autonomy of others. Individuals have the right to choose whether to have sex or get pregnant, for example, but they are not entitled to impose these choices on others. No one has the right to violate the rights, autonomy or bodily integrity of anyone else”.

Myth 5: Some groups of people are not entitled to bodily autonomy.

“Rights are for everyone, full stop” -Give me an Amen. Or as we say in the church of the Great Guitar of the Universe ‘Totally Excellent Dude’.

Myth 6: Bodily autonomy undermines traditions “These choices can be  – and often are – guided by religious leaders and cultural teachings“. 

Myth 7 Invasion of body autonomy only happens to women. The UN report shows t”hat men, too, can be subjected to violations of bodily autonomy… As is the case with achieving gender equality, the realization of bodily autonomy will fortify the welfare of all people, men and boys included. [81]

Now I am an utter heathen pagan (who worships the great guitar of the universe ad chocolate) but this is also a point raised in the history of how laws form. To repeat the issue so it lodges in their it is not just good enough to have laws based on just the letter of law right and legislation as dictated and interpreted by grey folk in grey suits at their whim. Good laws must have mana and with them principle of good governance. The ‘spirit of the law’ must ensure law do not become tools of oppression that permit the majority to pack rape the weak. Good laws must come with values checks and balances.

One of my social media regulars Charlie Brown succinctly notes of the lack of spirt in which the law is being applied with an absence of Labour founding father “Social Christianity” or even ‘Kindness’ “at least once a day I see a post from someone suggesting that unvaxxed people shouldn’t be allowed hospital treatment.

WTF!?!?!!!Ok, I get the concept. If you ‘choose’ not to get jabbed, then you should accept the consequences of your actions. But, refusing hospital treatment? That’s another level of evil.

If someone chooses to partake in extreme sports, they are fully aware of the risks of their actions. Should they be refused hospital treatment if they have an accident?

No, because they’re human beings and should be treated as such.

Every weekend, hospitals are full of injuries from people who choose to drink alcohol. Should they be refused treatment because they are fully aware of the risks of drinking alcohol? No!

400,000 people in New Zealand choose to smoke. Should they be refused hospital treatment if needed? No! There’s a number of people suggesting that unvaxxed should be stripped of basic human rights. And this way of thinking is being driven by the media, and fuelled by politicians.

Even our own PM smugly admits that she’s creating a 2 class society. Creating a 2 class society, blaming an entire pandemic on a group of people (based on no actual evidence), and suggesting people should lose their right to hospital treatment is a disgusting way of thinking and shines a light on everything that is wrong with the human race. The world already has enough rapists, murderers, paedophiles and abusers. The last thing we need is to be normalising more disgusting ways of thinking.

On that note Labour three wise men, the men who founded its welfare policy would meet in the doctor’s house in Kurow up the cold Waitaki valley to discuss the social injustices they saw around them as industrialist took advantage of those need work. It was here they wrote down six points that they believed should form the basis of a national health scheme and give not just laws but good governance.

That Medicine must be free, it must be complete and it must meet the needs of all the people.

1 It must aim at the prevention of disease.

2 It must make provision for income loss.

3 It must provide all the facilities for the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

4 It must be based on the provision of a family doctor for every person.

5 And this relates to the current situation the service must be based on the principle of the patient’s free choice of doctor and beliefs. In other words the three wise men recognised a fair system must respect the patients wishes and choices as well,

6 It must include the adequate provision for research in all matters relating to health. [82].

It does not say you must only use the medicine the government tell you to use especially when the government’s by doing so is breaching the very definition of natural justice and the government convinces the court to make ruling based on the “support” (not evidence as the term applies legally) that government policy received from academics and adviser that the state has being less than fully cooperative in fully identifying who gve the AG what advice when he determined issues like no job no jab. .

The principle of natural justice require the state must hear both sides. And that simply has not happened here. I will get into the full politics of that latter on visa how the state responded to my OIA on finding who exactly the state got their advice from when making their determinations visa vaccines, mandates and legality it is suffice to say The COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group & Covid 19 COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group helped provide science advice visa Vaccination Programme.

Membership The COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group

• Dr Ian Town (Chair) – Chief Science Advisor, Ministry of Health
• Prof David Murdoch (Deputy Chair) – Dean and Head of Campus, University of Otago, Christchurch
• Dr Elizabeth Wilson – S.M.O Paediatric Infectious Diseases, ADHB
• Dr Helen Petousis-Harris – Associated Professor, University of Auckland
• Prof Ian Frazer – Professor of Medicine, The University of Queensland
• Assoc Prof James Ussher – Associate Professor, University of Otago and Science Director, Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand (VAANZ)
• Dr Nikki Moreland – Associated Professor, University of Auckland
• Dr Nikki Turner – Director, Immunisation Centre (IMAC), University of Auckland
• Prof Peter McIntyre – Professor, University of Otago, Medical consultant, IMAC, and Professorial Fellow, NCIRS and University of Sydney, Australia
• Dr Sean Hanna – General Practitioner and Chair, Immunisation Subcommittee PTAC
• Prof Sue Crengle – General Practitioner and Professor, University of Otago
• Dr Tony Walls – Associate Professor of Paediatrics, University of Otago and Paediatric Infectious Diseases Specialist.

Membership Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group. (83)

• Sir David Skegg, Chair 
• Associate Prof Nikki Turner, Member
• Prof Philip Hill, Member
• Dr Maia Brewerton, Member
• Prof David Murdoch, Member
• Dr Ella Iosua, Member
• Rodney Jones, Special Advisor
• Professor Shaun Hendy, Special Advisor

Dr Ian Town is an Observer of the Group.

It goes without saying that the body above is highly distinguished and experienced It however was not qualified designed to evaluate questions and evidence on the physiological and genetic effects of mRNA vaccines an utterly new and untested technology.

“It is important to realise that the vaccines are only in their first iteration. Israel is effectively Pfizer’s real life laboratory” David Skegg (84)

Their is also the issue of bias affiliated with dogma, which will explore later on, in relation to this body only represented a narrow discipline and lacked input from ethics, legal and human rights experts to ensure the government received balanced advice in terms of meeting obligation to both medical ethical and human right concern so that the right ration between public safety and people’s right to choose a medical option they felt comfortable with where adhered too. The boards while chock full of highly talented people insured advice given was symmetrical and as opposed to asymmetrical and thus was not with out inherent bias.

“opportunities should be taken to promote preventive health measures now and at all times.” But “the chances of other ‘interventions’ having anything like the protective effect [of vaccination] is remote in my view.” (85)

51. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. 5 July 2008. Archived from the original on 5 July 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2020.58. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 New Zealand

54. Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill — First Reading  6 Hōngo 2017. Analysis of the three readings of the Bill (6/7/2017; 27/3/2018;iii 3/4/2018iv) from Hansard debates reveals a number of indirect references to human rights and four explicit references.

55.Modern History Sourcebook: United Nations:
Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960 United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records, Fifteenth Session, Supplement No. 16, pp. 66-67. (Transcribed 1998).

56. Andrew Little to UN: New Zealand is failing women and our justice system is broken Stuff Fonseka, Dileeppa 01:01, Jan 22 2019

57. What happened on the way to Khashoggi’s horrifying final seconds? The Washington Post 29/09/2019 Ignatius David

58. Christchurch Call To Eliminate Violent Terrorist & Extremist On Line

59. Equality and Liberty in the Golden Age of State by Jeffrey M Shaman Oxford University Press publication date: 2008 Print ISBN-13: 9780195334340

60. MFAT approved military equipment export permits to UAE Land Forces RNZ Smith. Mackenzie,

61. A constitution includes a hapū, whānau, iwi and Crown relationshipMarama Broughton’s paper to the Māori Law Review symposium on the Treaty of Waitangi and the constitution. 12 June 2013 Māori Law Review.

62. https://totaldisclosure.net/human-trafficking/sacha-stone-i/ Former CIA officer and conspiracy theorist who called pandemic a hoax dies of Covid Independent  Mishra. Stuti, 31 August 2021 

63. Mercenary’ behind gold bid in Solomon’s Stuff 1.31.2020. Hume. Tim,

64. Who are the ‘Bad Boys of Brexit’? From Morning Report, 8:46 am on 21 July 2020   

65. Conspiracy Panic NICHOLAS LEVIS Counter Punch

66. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 17 and the The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Office For Disability Issues;

67. Ibid

68. Source Early welfare in Kurow, Haigh, D. (2019). Early welfare in Kurow, New Zealand, Whanake: The Pacific Journal of Community Development, 5(1), 80–83. Founded at Unitec Institute of Technology in 2015

69. Ibid.

70. http://www.health.govt.nz COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG)

71. Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group http://www.covid19.govt.nz

72. Jacinda Ardern, Science, and Covid MandatesEvents, Facts, and Fallacies—A Long Read.We Didn’t See the Rocky Road Ahead. Guy David Hatchard 30.11.2021

73 Ibid.

74. Declaration of Inconsistency proposed Bil

75.1993 Human Rights Act

76. Source Watch Centre For Media & Democracy.

77. Photo Kelvyn Alp Facebook page.

78. Winston Peters confirms Brexit political operatives working for NZ First campaign Stuff March. Thomas, July 20 2020.

79. Conspiracy Panic Counter Punch. Levis. Nicholas Sep16 2020.

80. Article 15 – Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading Punishment. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Disability United Nations.

81. Bodily autonomy: Busting 7 myths that undermine individual rights and freedoms. United Nations Population Fund 14 April 2021

82. national health service: New Zealand of to-morrow. Early welfare in Kurow, New Zealand. Haigh, D. (2019) Haigh, D. (2019).

83. Membership Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group. The COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group

84. Guy Hatchett We Didn’t See the Rocky Road Ahead Dec 9 2021.